Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7588-S7597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate stands in recess subject to the
call of the Chair. Standby for further instructions from Capitol
Police.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:26 p.m., recessed until 7 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will resume the rollcall.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is absent due to death in family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--35

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Corzine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Lautenberg
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Reid
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Vitter

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1

Coburn

NOT VOTING--4

Bennett
Lieberman
Martinez
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
35. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COLEMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this about winds up our work.
Mr. President, I raise a point of order on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.

grants management

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, amendment number 1051 concerns the manner
in which the Environmental Protection Agency awards direct assistance
grants. Over the past 10 years, regardless of Presidential
administration, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and EPA
Inspector General have been extremely critical of the way EPA awards
and administers grants programs. As chairman of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, I have made oversight of EPA grants
management a Committee priority. Each year, the EPA awards half its
budget in grants amounting to over $4 billion. This amount is comprised
of non-discretionary grants awarded pursuant to regulatory or statutory
formula for expenditures such as capitalization funding for State and
local programs and comprised of discretionary grants awarded to a
variety of recipients. In a hearing before the Environment and Public
Works Committee early last year, the Government Accountability Office
and EPA inspector general offered testimony critical of the lack of
competition in awarding discretionary funds, the lack of measurable
environmental results, and an overall lack of accountability of EPA
personnel and grant recipients. More specifically, the GAO testified
that due to a lack of competition in grants, EPA can't ensure the most
qualified applicants receive grant awards. The EPA inspector general
even testified that due to a lack of competition, there is an
appearance of preferential treatment in grant awards. On March 31,
2005, the inspector general released an audit concluding that EPA needs
to compete more grants and recommended that EPA eliminate
noncompetitive justifications for national organizations that represent
the interests of State, tribal, and local governments. My amendment
reflects the inspector general's recommendation and would simply
require open competition to ensure the value of those awards. However,
the EPA inspector general's recommendation may be too broad of an
approach. Perhaps the most important question that can be raised
concerning EPA grants is the question, ``What is the benefit to the
environment?'' The EPA has an obligation to ensure taxpayers that it is
accomplishing its mission of protecting human health and the
environment with the funds it awards each year. My interest is ensuring
that EPA direct assistance grants demonstrate environmental value and
EPA enacts necessary measures to reach that aim. Can I get the
commitment from the chairman of the Interior Appropriations
subcommittee to work with me to sufficiently address this issue?
Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the concerns raised by the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee and commit to working with him
to address this issue of importance to him and the Environment and
Public Works Committee.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Montana and chairman of the
Interior Appropriations subcommittee for his commitment to work with me
on this matter of great importance to me, and I congratulate him on a
job well done with respect to this appropriations bill. With his
commitment I will withdraw my amendment 1051 to H.R. 2361.

TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in the Senate Report for the FY 2006
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, S. Rpt. 109-80,
under State and Tribal Assistance Grants programs within the
Environmental Protection Agency accounts, one of the line items gives a
grant to a town in Oregon called Winchester. It is my understanding
that the intended town which is seeking the grant of Federal assistance
for water improvements is actually Winchester Bay, OR.
Mr. WYDEN. I concur with my colleague and ask through the chair that
the managers of this bill fix this small but important typographical
error in conference on this bill with the House of Representatives.
Mr. BURNS. Yes, we will certainly do that.
Mr. DORGAN. I concur with my colleague that we will indeed try to fix
this conference.

REPLACEMENT OF THE FILENE CENTER MAIN GATE

Mr. WARNER. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on the
facility needs at Wolf Trap National

[[Page S7589]]

Park for the Performing Arts. The President's budget request includes
$4,285,000 to replace the main gate facility at the Filene Center. This
project also includes the replacement of three temporary trailers. The
purpose of this project is to vastly improve visitor services and
security at the main gate entrance. These facility improvements are
seriously needed to replace outdated and inadequate space for park
employees, volunteers, park police and visitors. The current
facilities, which have been considered ``temporary'' for over 20 years
are functionally obsolete leaving visitors to wait in long lines for
restrooms, and ticketing services.
I recognize that the Park Service's construction budget is under
significant financial constraints, but I must emphasize the financial
contributions made by the Wolf Trap Foundation to begin the conception
design work of this long-awaited project. I respectfully request that
the chairman keep these facts in mind, and ask if he could share with
the Senate his views on this important project.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his
support for this unique Park Service asset. As the Senator from
Virginia has indicated, the facilities at the Filene Center's main gate
are in serious need of replacement to improve employee space and
visitor services. The Senator from Virginia has my commitment to ensure
that the needs of this facility are fully evaluated as we work with our
colleagues in the House of Representatives on the FY 2006 Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I engage the Senator from Montana, the
distinguished subcommittee Chairman, and the Senator from North Dakota,
the distinguished subcommittee ranking member, in a brief colloquy to
clarify the location of the Forest Service land acquisition project
listed as the ``I-90 Corridor'' on page 87 of the committee report.
Mr. BURNS. The subcommittee would be happy to assist the Senator in
this matter.
Mrs. MURRAY. The project called ``I-90 Corridor'' is listed in the
committee report as being in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
The parcels that are designated for acquisition by the Forest Service
in FY 2006 are actually located in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest. I ask the Chairman and Senator Dorgan if that is their
understanding as well?
Mr. BURNS. It is my understanding.
Mr. DORGAN. I concur and suggest we address this error through the
conference report.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman and ranking member, and appreciate
the suggestion that we clarify this in the conference report
accompanying H.R. 2361, so that the report will read ``Mt Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest--I-90 Corridor'' in the State of Washington.
Mr. BURNS. We will see that the change is made.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan for their
assistance in clarifying this matter.

bia water technician training program

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I speak on the pending Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2006. I would to discuss
the Committee recommendation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA,
Water Management and Planning program.
I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, Senator Burns, and the distinguished ranking member,
Senator Dorgan, for restoring $2 million to the President's budget
request for BIA Water Management and Planning. These funds are very
important to the Indian Tribes and Pueblos in the State of New Mexico.
I am particularly interested in the Water Technician Training program
that is funded within this BIA program. The BIA Water Technician
Training program trains Native Americans to manage water resources on
their reservation lands. The program trains tribal members in a broad
range of water-related fields, including hydrology, fish and wildlife
biology, irrigation, soil surveys, dam operation, surface and ground
water pollution, and forest management. Training is offered at
university campuses, including New Mexico State University.
The program curriculum is developed with Federal agency partners,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Interior agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Forest Service. With this technical training, tribal members
work to manage and preserve water and other natural resources for the
benefit of the tribe. The program provides educational and employment
opportunities and economic benefits.
May I inquire of the distinguished Chairman if it is the intention of
the Subcommittee in restoring $2 million to the BIA Water Management
and Planning Program to continue the Water Technician Training program,
which is currently receiving $400,000?
Mr. BURNS. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. The committee
restored $2 million to the BIA budget request for Water Management and
Planning activities and continues funding for the BIA Water Technician
Training program, which the administration proposed to eliminate.
Mr. DORGAN. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Montana that
this is the intent of the committee bill, and the Senate expects the
administration to fund the BIA Water Technician Training program at the
current level of $400,000.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues for this assurance. I appreciate
their confirmation as to continuation of funding for the BIA Water
Technician Training program.

Grand Teton national park visitors center

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished
chairman for his assistance in solving a problem that I hope he, too,
would agree needs fixing.
In the fiscal year 04 and fiscal year 05 appropriations, Congress
provided a total of $8 million in the NPS construction account to build
a visitors center at Grand Teton National Park. Private partners will
contribute $10 million.
The Park Service has asked the private partners to deposit their
share in an escrowed Treasury account prior to the start of
construction. To meet that requirement, the private partners will
borrow the funds from a commercial bank and therefore begin accruing
interest expense immediately even though the majority of the funds may
not be needed for 12 to 18 months.
The private partners would prefer to meet their commitment by giving
the NPS an irrevocable letter of credit due and payable from a bank or
financial institution organized and authorized to transact business in
the United State. It would save them upwards to $800,000 in interest
payments over the construction period--funds that could be used for
other park projects.
The National Park Service believes they don't have the authority to
accept a letter or credit unless specifically authorized by Congress,
Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
As chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, it is my goal to encourage partnerships
that benefit our parks while at the same time insuring that the
Government's interest is protected.
I ask that we work together between now and conference to evaluate
ways these two goals can be accomplished. Specifically, I would like to
grant the NPS the authority to accept an irrevocable letter of credit
if we can be convinced the government's interest would be protected.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the role of partnerships is rapidly
changing and our subcommittee has encouraged the Park Service to
develop guidelines and standards for their partners. I am encouraged by
the progress. It also seems appropriate that we not hobble partners
with unnecessary and expensive requirements. I will be glad to look at
ways to do that.

rahway valley sewerage authority

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senator's
attention a very important project in my home State of New Jersey that
I believe should be given strong consideration for funding. The Rahway
Valley Sewerage Authority is currently undertaking a project on a grand
scale. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency directed the
authority to expand its wastewater treatment capacity in order to meet
wet weather sanitary sewage overflow requirements by 2008. The
estimated cost of this large project was $68 million at the time.

[[Page S7590]]

That estimate proved to be optimistic. The present day cost estimate
for the project is $235 million.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg,
for bringing this project to the attention of the ranking member of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. This project is quite costly for
the authority and the State of New Jersey and will lead to the tripling
of sewer rates for residents in 12 communities in the area. I believe
that any funding assistance that the federal government can provide
would be put to very good use.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from the State of New
Jersey. This program sounds very important but how does the Rahway
Valley Sewerage Authority plan to tackle this large task?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The authority, as required by the consent order, has
developed a comprehensive strategic plan to comply with the order. A
critical component of the plan is the construction of a new gravity
relief sewer that will convey combined sanitary sewage overflows for
enhanced treatment at the upgraded plant. The authority has focused its
request for Federal funding exclusively on this gravity relief sewer
facility. The gravity relief sewer facility is estimated to cost $10.9
million in its entirety. Federal funding can play an important role in
financing this cost and in facilitating the early construction of this
much needed project.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank my colleagues from New Jersey and I thank them
for bringing this project to my attention. This does sound like a good
project and as this bill moves to conference we will try and do what we
can for it.
Mr. BURNS. I concur with the ranking member. I believe this project
does have merit, and we will see what we can do for this project as
this bill moves to conference.

competitive sourcing process

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is no secret that there have long
been concerns about the competitive sourcing process at the Forest
Service. I commend the chairman and ranking member for their attention
to this issue in the underlying bill, which reflects those concerns by
limiting the amount of funding that the Forest Service may use during
fiscal year 2006 for competitive sourcing studies and related
activities. The underlying bill also requires agencies funded by this
bill to ``include the incremental costs directly attributable to
conducting the competitive sourcing competitions'' in any reports to
the Appropriations Committee about such studies and stipulates that
such costs should be reported ``in accordance with full cost accounting
principles.'' The fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill that
the other body passed last month contains similar language, and also
directs the Forest Service to provide quarterly reports on its related
business process reengineering efforts.
The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being
spent and if the Forest Service's competitive sourcing process is
resulting in true savings, which should include a full cost accounting
of all of the related savings and losses associated with this process.
An amendment I proposed to the bill would have required the General
Accountability Office to conduct an audit of existing Forest Service
competitive sourcing procedures and to make recommendations on how
these procedures can be improved, including recommendations on what
accounting practices should be adopted, by the Forest Service to
improve accountability.
It is my understanding that the chairman and the ranking member have
agreed to work with me to request such an audit.
Mr. BURNS. The Senator is correct. I am willing to work with the
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Dorgan to request in writing this audit by the
Government Accountability Office.
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to assist with such a request for a GAO
audit of the Forest Service's competitive sourcing initiative.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
assistance on this important issue. I look forward to reviewing GAO's
findings.

northeast states forestry research cooperative

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important
matter with the Chairman and ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee regarding a provision in the Senate bill
which provides funding for the Northeast States Forestry Research
Cooperative.
Congress authorized the creation of the Northeast States Forestry
Research Cooperative in the 1998 Agricultural Research Act. The
authorization directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide funding
to land grant colleges and universities and natural resources and
forestry schools in the States of New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont for research, technology transfer and other activities related
to ecosystem health, forest management, development of forest products
and alternative renewable energy.
While I certainly support funding for Maine, Vermont and New
Hampshire, I believe that New York, and our lead institution, the SUNY
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, has been left out of the
funding pool and ought to be included in this year's Interior
Appropriations bill.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from New York for her comments about
the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. We did provide
additional funding to allow Maine to become integrated into the
cooperative and I appreciate the Senator's position with respect to her
State of New York. I will consider additional funding as the bill moves
to conference.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. I know
the Senator has advocated for including New York in the account that
funds the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. This is a
great program that provides significant research, economic development,
and technology transfers related to our Nation's forests. I applaud the
Senator for her continued advocacy and I want to assure her that I will
work with the Chairman to consider additional funding as the Interior
bill moves to conference with the House.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chairman and ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee. When one considers that New York's
northern forests are more than three times the size of those in New
Hampshire and Vermont combined, I believe that adding New York for
funding is the right thing to do.
The forest products industry is a major contributor to the New York
State and national economy. New York's forest products industry is the
fifth largest manufacturing sector employing more than 60,000 people.
It is estimated that forest-based manufacturing and forest-related
tourism and recreation contribute more than $9 billion to New York
State's economy each year. Jobs in these areas must be sustained to
ensure our forest communities remain strong. These forests must be
managed wisely through sustainable development that recognizes the
needs of these communities, but also values the benefits derived from
America's forests. This is particularly true when considering that
these forests cover 75 percent of the critical New York City watershed.
This investment will provide economic benefits that contribute to
``smart energy'' demonstrations and commercialization of wood-based
bio-refining technology which will advance biofuels, and other natural
industries in New York State.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their willingness to
consider additional funding to include New York as part of the
Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area Water Systems

Mr. REID. I am proud to represent a State with so many natural
treasures. Of particular importance to me is the Lake Mead Natural
Recreation Area, which is managed by the National Park Service. Because
of its amazing natural beauty and its proximity to the residents of
both southern Nevada and northern Arizona, Lake Mead receives nearly 10
million visitors a year. I rise today to bring attention to a water and
wastewater maintenance project at Lake Mead that is need of serious
attention. Is the distinguished ranking member familiar with the
beautiful Lake Mead National Recreation Area?

[[Page S7591]]

Mr. DORGAN. I am indeed. The Senator should be proud to have such a
jewel in his State. Lake Mead is not only a great recreation site
within Nevada's borders, but is known worldwide for its clean waters
and the unforgettable Hoover Dam that was a vital public works project
during the Great Depression. I understand that the project that the
distinguished minority leader is concerned with was included in the
President's budget as one of the Park Service's main priorities. Is
that correct?
Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. Because Lake
Mead's water and wastewater facilities were constructed in the 1950s,
and some as long ago as the 1930s, the National Park Service and the
President put these projects forward as priorities. Failure of the
water systems--including force mains, gravity mains and manholes--would
cause significant risks to public health and the environment due to
discharges of raw sewage from these systems. Sewage is generated at the
lowest point in these systems due to waste-generating activities
occurring close to the lake, so the pristine water quality of Lake Mead
and Lake Mohave could be jeopardized if there were a major spill caused
by catastrophic failure of one of these mains. Failure of any force
main would also virtually shut down all commercial, residential, and
recreational use within the development and could expose visitors and
employees and their families to the risk of disease transmission via
direct physical contact with raw sewage, as well as undermining roads,
buildings, utility lines, or other structures due to high-pressure
spray. In short, this is no little problem.
Mr. BURNS. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the
administration's budget requested $9.4 million to deal with phase-1
improvements to the water and wastewater systems at Lake Mead.
Mr. REID. The Senator is exactly right.
Mr. BURNS. Well, let me assure the minority leader that we will look
for ways to help fund this long overdue maintenance of Lake Mead's
water and wastewater systems. One option we can consider is to find
funding for the failing wastewater system this year--I am told this is
roughly $2.7 million--since it seems to pose the greatest threat to
Lake Mead and its visitors. And we will certainly give the rest of the
project the attention it deserves.
Mr. REID. The chairman and ranking member are very kind to share my
interest in this project. I greatly appreciate their assistance on this
important issue.

Indian Health Facilities in Nevada

Mr. REID. The Indian Health Service which is funded by this bill, is
the agency charged with providing health care services to Native
American people. We in this body must work to ensure that the Indian
Health Service is meeting the needs of all Native Americans. My State
is home to 22 Indian tribes, all of which are served by the Phoenix
area office of the IHS. That same office also provides health services
to the Indians of Arizona and Utah, except for the Navajo Nation. Am I
correct that this year's appropriations bill contains $8 million in
funding for the construction of one of the ambulatory care clinics in
the Phoenix area of the IHS?
Mr. BURNS. The Senator is correct. The Phoenix Indian Medical Center
Hospital System is at the top of the priority list for replacement of
its inpatient facility. As part of this replacement, three ambulatory
clinics will be constructed in the region to provide better health care
services to the tribes in the area, including those in Nevada. The
amount of $4 million in planning funds for design of two of the
center's clinics was provided last year. This year, an additional $8
million for the construction of one of the clinics that is part of that
project is recommended in the Senate bill.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator. The tribes in my State are supportive
of efforts to improve health care for tribes in Phoenix. They have told
me that--of all the challenges that confront tribes today--health care
is by far the most urgent, and perhaps the most daunting. I thank the
Senator and the members of his subcommittee for realizing the
importance of Indian health care and providing resources for it.
However, the tribes in my State face another challenge in terms of
the replacement of this medical center system. The current plans call
for the replacement of three out-patient clinics in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, and will provide for the eventual renovation of the
in-patient medical center. These are important projects. However,
tribes in Nevada cannot realistically make use of these centers. Tribes
in Northern Nevada, for instance, are more than a day's drive from
Phoenix.
I am told that the Indian Health Services' plans to replace the
Phoenix Indian Medical Center system were developed without adequately
accounting for the health care needs of eligible beneficiaries in
outlying areas, like Nevada, Utah or rural Arizona. I am also told that
should those plans move ahead, the resulting health care delivery
system will disadvantage eligible beneficiaries that reside a distance
away from the Medical Center.
In order to address these concerns, it is especially important to me
that the IHS meet and discuss with Nevada tribes ways to improve health
care services in Nevada, including facility needs and the Contract
Health Services Program. In addition, I expect that these meetings will
result in a report to the committe, with recommendations, to assist the
committee in its ongoing efforts to improve the quality of health care
for Nevada's Native Americans.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator. My State has several Indian tribes
as well, and I am aware of the challenges that they face. I assure the
minority leader that the committee is aware of the Indian health needs
in Nevada and expects that IHS will, No. 1, continue to meet and
discuss with the 22 tribes in Nevada, as well as the Intertribal Health
Board of Nevada and the Intertribal Health Board of Nevada, in an
effort to find ways to improve the delivery and quality of health
services to Native Americans in Nevada, and, No. 2, will report back to
the committee in writing, with recommendations, on how to improve
secondary and tertiary care in Nevada.
Mr. BURNS. My State of Montana is home to tens of thousands of Native
Americans, and I am familiar with the health care challenges that they
and other Native Americans around the Nation face. I understand that
the minority leader expects IHS to meet with all Nevada tribes to
discuss ways to improve their health care services.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senators
to ensure that Indian beneficiaries in Nevada receive the critical
health care funding that they need. I thank the Senators for their work
on behalf of Native Americans throughout Nevada and the Nation, and I
thank them for engaging in this colloquy.

amendment no. 1030

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on May 24, 1999, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs produced an agreement regarding the funding formula for the two
BIA postsecondary schools Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute,
known as SIPI, and Haskell Indian Nations University. SIPI and Haskell
agreed that while base funding for each institution would not be
impacted, all new funds would be proportionately distributed to each
school based on unmet student need. In accordance with the agreement,
BIA developed a formula for unmet need.
In the conference report to Public Law 106-113, the Interior
Appropriations bill, Congress then directed BIA to allocate funds for
SIPI and Haskell for fiscal year 2000 as determined by such formula.
Since then, however, BIA has not used the formula agreed upon by all
parties, but should have, as Congress directed.
Mr. BURNS. The Senator from New Mexico is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. I agree with the chair and the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask if the chair and ranking member would work with
me, should funding become available, to find $178,730 in conference for
SIPI, which is the amount of funds I believe is needed to correct this
situation for the period that the formula should have been used
according to Congressional direction, up to and including fiscal year
2006.
Mr. BURNS. I will be happy to consider the Senator's request should
funding become available.
Mr. DORGAN. I, too, will do my best to help solve this problem.

[[Page S7592]]

highlands conservation act

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on November 30, 2004, President Bush
signed the bipartisan Highlands Conservation Act into law to authorize
up to $11 million per year over the next 10 years for land conservation
partnership projects and open space purchases from willing sellers in
the four-state Highlands Region.
This law recognizes the national significance of land and water
resources in the 3.5 million acre Highlands Region which stretches from
northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River Valley in New
York, through New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. It will
safeguard these critical resources to protect the pristine wilderness
and wildlife of the Highlands.
The value of the natural, recreational and scenic resources of the
Highlands cannot be overstated. In a study of the New York-New Jersey
Highlands region alone, the Forest Service found that 170 million
gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality
drinking water for over 11 million people; 247 threatened or endangered
species live in the New Jersey-New York Highlands region, including the
timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and
great blue heron. According to the U.S. Forest Service, over 14 million
people visit the New York-New Jersey Highlands for outdoor recreation,
more than Yellowstone National Park and our most heavily visited
natural treasures.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. According to the Forest Service, more than 5,000
acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New Jersey sections
of the Highlands have been lost annually to development between 1995
and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to future water
supplies remain unprotected. As the demand for new housing and other
types of development continues to alter the vast areas of forest and
open space in our region, it is important that Congress acts now to
provide funding to preserve the high priority open space that remains.
I appreciate the consideration by my colleagues from North Dakota and
Montana of the importance of protecting the Highlands Region.
Mr. CORZINE. I was proud to work with my colleagues in the Senate,
Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer, Specter, Santorum, Lieberman and
Dodd, and my colleague in the
House of Representatives, Congressman Frelinghuysen to enact the
Highlands Conservation Act into law. To secure appropriations to match
the authorization, we requested from the Interior Appropriations
Committee $11 million to support open space protection in the four
Highlands States for fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, that funding was
not included in the bill. This vital funding is needed to protect the
Wyanokie Highlands, Scotts Mountain and Musconetcong Ridge in New
Jersey, as well as to protect threatened areas in New York, Connecticut
and Pennsylvania. It would also allow the USDA Forest Service to update
its 1992 study of the Highlands Region to include the States of
Connecticut and Pennsylvania. We would like to work with the chairman
and ranking member to ensure they are protected. Will the Senators
agree that should funding become available during the conference
proceedings that they will work with us to secure funds to meet the
goals of the Highlands Conservation Act and protect the Highlands,
especially the New Jersey Region?
Mr. DORGAN. I agree with the Senators from New Jersey that the
Highlands Region is a vital national resource. If there are funds
available in the conference report, I will work with the Senators to
see if we can secure the funding needed to protect this region.
Mr. BURNS. I understand the importance of the Highlands Region.
Should funding become available during conference proceedings, I will
work with my colleagues to seek funds to support land conservation
partnership projects and open space purchases from willing sellers in
the Highlands region.

amendment no. 1031

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my amendment provides more opportunities
for Youth Conservation Corps to partner with the land management
agencies funded through this bill. In addition, according to agency
information, it would save the taxpayers money.
For decades, we have included a provision in this bill requiring the
land management agencies to carry out some of their projects in
partnership with the Youth Conservation Corps. In the mid-1970s, we
funded the YCC program at $60 million each year. Unfortunately,
Congress has more or less forgotten the YCC for the last 5 years, which
is how long it has been since we increased the modest setaside for the
programs to about $7 million.
YCC projects range from building trails and campsites, to restoring
watersheds and monuments, to eradicating exotic pests and weeds. The
Youth Corps bring to the agencies enthusiastic young adults that are
ready to work hard to improve our public lands. The youth corps members
come away with a good job and invaluable experiences.
In New Mexico, for example, the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps has
partnered with all of these agencies to carry our many projects over
the years. One project was to create a scenic lakeside trail with an
interpretive nature component in the Carson National Forest. Recently,
the site was listed as one of the top 15 camping sites in New Mexico,
and the lakeside trail is an integral component of that camping
experience.
We held a hearing on the YCC program in the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources a few years ago, and the Park Service Director
testified that his agency received $1.70 in benefits for every $1.00 it
invested in YCC projects. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that
it received $2.00 dollars for every $1.00 it invested. Supporting this
program is good fiscal policy.
My amendment would provide a modest increase of almost $2 million in
the YCC setaside, to be spread among the four agencies. This does
little more than prevent the program from shrinking from where it was 5
years ago, but it would result in tangible benefits to our youth, our
public lands, and our budget.
This amendment is good education policy, good public lands policy,
good economic policy, good government policy, and good fiscal policy. I
am gratified that this amendment was adopted.

Amendment No. 1050

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the withdrawal of my
amendment No. 1050 to H.R. 2361, the pending Interior Appropriations
bill. Although the amendment was withdrawn, I remain committed to
addressing the funding inequities in the EPA-administered Clean Water
Act State Revolving Fund--CWA SRF--the primary Federal mechanism for
financing clean water and wastewater infrastructure projects
nationwide.
I applaud both Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, the chairman and
ranking member respectively, for recognizing the importance of this
program and funding it at the fiscal year 2005 level of $1.09 billion
in this tight budget year.
Our States do depend on CWA SRF to provide much needed financial
assistance in the form of low interest loans to towns and cities to
help defray the costs of maintaining and upgrading their water
treatment systems. It is especially beneficial for small rural water
companies that serve so much of the Western and Midwestern States.
However, providing level funding for the CWA SRF is not enough. We
have a more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed with regard
to the CWA SRF. That is, the inequities built into the current CWA SRF
formula which will determine how much of the $1.09 billion each State
gets. Senator Burns recognizes that too, and has agreed to work with me
to correct it.
Congress adopted the current allocation formula in the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act. The formula was developed behind
closed doors during the conference.
Nowhere in the legislative history of Congress' final action on the
1987 amendments is there a clear statement about how it came up with
the final allocation formula--it is even difficult to guess. The
conference report on the final legislation merely states: ``The
Conference substitute adopts a new formula for distributing
construction grant funds and the state revolving loan fund
capitalization grant funds and the state revolving loan fund
capitalization grants among the states for

[[Page S7593]]

fiscal years 1987 through 1990.'' The allocations are fixed, statutory
percentages. That is to say, once the Act was signed into law, each
would receive the same share of available funds in perpetuity, unless
the Act itself is amended.
This is not the first time I have come to the floor to persuade my
colleagues to act to change this formula, and I doubt it will be the
last. Some of you may remember that we had a very good debate on August
2, 2001, during the Senate's consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations
bill on this very issue that resulted in the Senate expressing its
sense about the need to report authorizing legislation that included an
equitable, needs-based formula.
As my constituents remind me, we have yet to either amend or
reauthorize the portion of the Clean Water Act pertaining to the CWA
SRF or the faulty formula. Year after year promises are made but
nothing happens. The authorizing committee has had years to change the
formula and has not done so. There is a reason nothing happens--
because the States that benefit from the current formula do not want it
to change. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them, but
there comes a time when one's patience wears thin. I think we have an
obligation to say enough is enough. We must change the formula.

After all, let's look at the current situation we face in the bill
before us. We are appropriating dollars to an unauthorized program--it
expired in 1990--using a statutory formula set 19 years ago that bears
no relationship to the actual needs reported by the states. That is
sad, and it needs to change.
It is interesting to note that, when Congress enacted the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act, we ensured that no such inequity would haunt the
newly created Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. From its inception,
the Drinking Water Fund was allocated on the basis of a quadrennial
infrastructure needs survey conducted by the various States under EPA
supervision and guidance. The survey involves the States in determining
their own needs for drinking water infrastructure to ensure compliance
with EPA regulations. The EPA, in turn, validates the state submissions
and compiles them in a report to Congress. The EPA then allocates
Drinking Water Fund appropriations on the basis of each State's
proportional share of the total need.
There is a fundamental fairness associated with allocating the funds
on the basis of the survey. The States themselves participate in the
survey. The EPA has oversight, but in the end, valid needs are simply
compiled into the aggregate, and the resulting State share of the total
national need determine Drinking Water Fund allocations among the
States.
Unfortunately, as we all know, the same is not true for the much
larger CWA SRF. A Clean Water Needs Survey is performed by the States
every 4 years called the ``Clean Watershed Needs Survey'' and the EPA
in fashion similar to the compilation of the Drinking Water Needs
Survey validates the State's submissions and compiles them in a report
to Congress. The Clean Watershed Needs Survey, however, has no impact
on CWA SRF allocations.
I believe, as I am sure do most of my fair-minded colleagues, that we
must work together to right this wrong. There is no reason for the
Drinking Water Fund to be allocated fairly on the basis of actual need,
while the CWA SRF is allocated on an arcane set of fixed percentages
that were established before most of us were elected to Congress.
So what does my amendment do? What my amendment would do is update
the funding formula using the Drinking Water Fund formula as precedent.
Under my amendment, each State would receive funds based on its share
of the total 20 year-clean watershed infrastructure needs, as
documented in the most recent Clean Watershed Needs Survey, with no
State receiving less than 1 percent of the total appropriated for the
CWA SRF. There would be up to 1.5 percent set aside for Indian Tribes
and 0.25 percent for all the U.S. territories.
What I am saying is, let's even out the playing field and make sure
that everybody gets at least a share closer to what the EPA says they
deserve to have. That is what we are trying to do, make it fair for
everybody.
Let me cite some examples that demonstrate the fundamental unfairness
of the current formula in contrast to my amendment. There are 12 States
that are receiving more funding than the minimum allocation and more
than they documented in needs in the survey. These States would lose
the windfall they are currently receiving under my amendment.
But there are some States, like New Jersey and Florida, that are
receiving significantly less than their share. My amendment would
correct this inequity. New Jersey, for example, would receive about $45
million under the current formula. It would receive almost $61 million
under my amendment--about a $16 million increase. Florida would receive
about $37 million under the current formula but would receive almost
$48 million under my amendment--about a $10 million increase. The
increases these States receive demonstrate the fact that they have been
significantly shortchanged in the past. My home State falls into this
category. Arizona ranks 10th in need according to the latest EPA Clean
Watershed Needs Survey. However, Arizona ranks dead last, behind all
the States and Puerto Rico in the percentage of needs met under the
current formula. In terms of dollars, Arizona would receive about $7
million under the current formula, but would receive almost $31 million
under my amendment. I am sure now it is clear why I am standing here.
My amendment also helps small States. Those States would receive the
minimum allotment, which is actually a greater percentage than they
should based on the needs they documented in the needs survey. There
are five other States that will see a reduction in what they receive,
but these States have had a larger percentage of their total needs
funded under the current formula since it was enacted. The state of New
York is an example. New York is No. 1 in need and No. 1 in total
dollars received out of the CWA SRF. I should point out that although
New York's total allocation would go down under my amendment it would
continue to rank No. 1 in terms of dollars allocated. New York would
receive approximately $95 million.
The formula that I proposed in my amendment assures that each State
could meet the clean water needs of its citizens by bringing
fundamental fairness to the allocation of the appropriated dollars. It
ensures that all States receive a fair share, and recognizes that needs
change over time. By changing the formula to comport with the needs
survey, it will adjust to changing circumstances and, thus, will
protect all states.
If my colleagues have a better formula I urge them to come forward
with it. This issue is not going away. Senator Burns recognizes that.
In return for my withdrawal of this amendment, he has agreed to work
with me to persuade the authorizing committee to get this done. I thank
him for that.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to register my opposition to the
Kyl amendment No. 1050 to H.R. 2361, the Senate Interior Appropriations
bill.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program is essential for
protecting public health, watersheds, and the natural environment by
providing critical federal seed money for the maintenance and
improvement of water infrastructure. Despite important progress in
protecting and enhancing water quality since the enactment of the Clean
Water Act in 1972, serious water pollution problems persist throughout
the Nation.
The need for continued Federal investment in the Nation's water
infrastructure is undeniable. The Environmental Protection Agency's
September 30, 2002 Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap
Analysis found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current
spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure
over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. In
November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the
annual investment in clean water infrastructure needs to be at least
$13 billion for capital construction and $20.3 billion for operation
and maintenance.
The Kyl amendment would restructure the current formula for
distributing federal funding to the states under the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, SRF, Program. As chairman of

[[Page S7594]]

the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, with authorizing
jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and the SRF Program, I thank
Senator Kyl for his interest in the clean water formula.
However, I believe the Interior appropriations bill is the wrong
forum for discussion of any statutory changes to the Clean Water SRF
formula. Members of the subcommittee and the Environment and Public
Works Committee are working closely to craft water infrastructure
legislation that would authorize new funding for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRFs, as well as address the antiquated Clean Water SRF
formula.
Senator Kyl is correct, the Clean Water SRF formula is in need of
revision. Arizona is one of many States that have seen their needs grow
since the last time the formula was updated in 1987. The Environment
and Public Works Committee is working on the necessary changes to the
SRF, and hope to move water infrastructure legislation by the end of
the summer.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment and
support the ongoing process of updating the Clean Water formula by the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to begin, let me assure my colleague that
as chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am fully
aware of how important this issue is to his State of Arizona. His
State's current allocation under the Clean Water Act is well below the
State's proportional need.
As my colleague knows, the EPW Committee has for the past two
Congresses passed legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRFs. In those bills, the committee also rewrote the
clean water formula. My colleagues Senators Jeffords, Chafee and
Clinton and I are working on a new proposal and feel confident that
unlike our previous efforts, this bill will be enacted into law.
My State of Oklahoma would get more money under the Kyl formula than
under the current allocation. I would like to support your amendment
because it brings more dollars home to Oklahoma. However, all States
need more water infrastructure money as their systems age and struggle
to meet the ever-growing list of Federal regulations. There is a
significant nationwide shortage of funds that is affecting all States.
Given current Federal appropriations, there is simply no way to
rewrite the formula so that all States win. If we change the formula,
without reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Funds, some States will
have to lose money. In order to assure that each State receives
sufficient funds to run an effective program, we need to enact water
infrastructure legislation which raises the authorization level for
this important program while also addressing the formula. The
committee's long-term goal is to keep everyone whole because all States
need more money not less. I hope all of my colleagues who care strongly
about the Kyl amendment will rally around the bill that we hope to pass
out of committee next month.
The committee will do as the Senate promised Senator Kyl during the
107th Congress and pass another formula. We will put forth a proposal
that minimizes the pain to those States that will see their clean water
funding cut while providing modest increases to other States. We will
continue to work to increase the authorization to this important
program so that the needs of all States can be met.
I appreciate my colleague's willingness to withdraw his amendment and
allow the committee to do its work.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl
amendment No. 1050.
This amendment seeks to change the distribution formula for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund which sends money to the states for water
infrastructure projects.
The Clean Water Act is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member. We are aware
of the issues raised by Senator Kyl in this amendment--the distribution
formula is outdated. It was adopted in 1987 and has not changed.
Arizona receives a very small percentage of the total through this
formula. However, an appropriations bill is not the right place for
this change in authorizing legislation. A change of this magnitude
needs to be worked through the authorizing committee.
There are serious consequences to this type of action. For example,
under the Kyl formula, the State of Ohio loses 30 percent of its
current allocation. Tennessee would lose 32 percent. Michigan would
lose 57 percent. Massachusetts would lose 38 percent of its current
allocation.
In the last two Congresses, the EPW Committee has acted to update the
formula and increase funding levels for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund. This Congress, we are again planning to move this legislation
through the committee in just a few weeks.
I cannot support an amendment making a change of this significance on
an appropriations bill. There are also some problems with the language
in the Kyl amendment.
It calls for States to receive at least 1 percent of the total if
their need is less than 1 percent and it simultaneously calls for all
other States to receive their need. This is simply impossible to do.
With a finite pot of money, in order to establish a 1 percent floor,
it is necessary to take some funds away from nonfloor States. The Kyl
amendment fails to include this step in the process.
In addition, the Kyl amendment includes a provision dealing with
unallocated balances. Again, there are no unallocated balances in a
formula that distributes 100 percent of the available money.
The Senate should not act on an authorizing change of this magnitude
on an appropriations bill. The Environment and Public Works Committee
is on the verge of marking up legislation dealing with this exact
issue.
In addition, there are technical problems with the Kyl amendment that
would make it impossible to implement. Therefore, I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the Kyl amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate
yesterday and missed rollcall votes 158 through 160. There were two
reasons for my absence. First, I attended a memorial service for Mrs.
Marcia Lieberman, the mother of our colleague, Joseph Lieberman.
Second, I attended memorial services for Robert Killian Sr., the former
Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, a close friend to me and my family.
Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted as follows:
Rollcall vote No. 158: ``Yea''; rollcall vote No. 159: ``Nay'';
rollcall vote No. 160: ``yea''.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to spend a moment talking
about the funding of critical programs under the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. While I am pleased with the
Appropriations Committee's efforts to fund the State Revolving Fund for
Wastewater Treatment and for Drinking Water at the highest possible
levels, I am gravely concerned about the overall cut in environmental
spending contained in the bill before us today.
A clean and healthy environment may be our most important legacy for
our children. It saddens me to think that under the guise of fiscal
responsibility, the bill before us today cuts spending at the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to levels not seen since fiscal
year 2001. This bill funds the EPA at $7.88 billion. As recently as
fiscal year 2004, the EPA received $8.365 billion. This is a cut of
almost $500 million in just 2 years.
Because of the administration's fiscal policies and priorities, which
have led to record deficits, we are now going to underfund many
programs that are important to the protection of public health and the
environment. While I appreciate the dire straits that the Interior
Subcommittee members found themselves in, particularly relative to
other subcommittee's allocations, I am very concerned with some of the
proposed cuts. In addition, I am very concerned that these levels will
drop further in conference with the House, which is significantly more
hostile to such programs under its current leadership.
I want to highlight a few of the funding reductions in air protection
programs that I am concerned about and hope will be increased in
conference.
The bill includes a reduction for the Clean Air Allowance Trading
program.

[[Page S7595]]

This reduction will impede the implementation of the administration's
recently and much-touted clean air interstate rule.
The bill recommends a large reduction in EPA's Federal Vehicle and
Fuels Standards and Certification Program. Such a cut from the budget
request appears designed to harm the Agency's ability to proceed on a
number of fronts that would otherwise produce cleaner vehicles and air
sooner. Specifically, the cuts will make it harder for EPA to propose
and finalize, as promised in regulation and, in some cases, directed by
Congress, a rule on mobile source air toxics, on locomotive and marine
diesel engine emissions performance, and on small engine emissions
standards.
This bill would cut by 10 percent EPA's research on national air
quality standards. Such a cut goes against continuing scientific
revelations about the significant harm that air pollution at all levels
causes to public health. In addition, this cut could further delay the
already late implementation rules for PM-2.5 and the second phase on
the ozone standard. At a time when EPA should be focusing heavily on
revisions to the PM-2.5 and ozone standards, and the necessary
scientific research to support those reviews, as well as providing
critical advice to the States and local governments on the most
effective methods of control and monitoring, these reductions cause me
great concern.
The bill would reduce the budget request for Federal Support for Air
Quality Management by $22.7 million. This will cut back on plans for
the national clean diesel initiative and substantially delay the EPA's
efforts to improve the reliability and availability of Air Quality
Index forecasts around the Nation. As Senators may know, this is a
particularly important tool for the growing population of asthmatic
children. Parents need to know ahead of time if the day will be code
red, orange or otherwise dangerous to vulnerable populations. Related
cuts in the Clean Schoolbus program request also need to be restored.
Finally, while I appreciate that this bill rejects the
administration's proposed cuts in the domestic stratospheric ozone
program, we seem to be headed again toward underfunding our commitment
to the Montreal Protocol. This international treaty has been a
resounding success in helping to protect the ozone layer from CFCs. I
do not know of a good reason for the United States not to contribute
its ratified share of the costs of phasing out ozone depleting
substances and developing alternatives on a global basis.
This bill would cut spending at the EPA by $144 million from last
year's level, and this does not take into account inflation or the
mandatory cost of pay increases. I will vote for this bill in the hopes
that it will become better in conference, and with the recognition that
the appropriators have done a good job with limited resources.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I speak about the plight of children
afflicted by elevated levels of lead in their blood. Although it has
been three decades since lead was a component of paint, the effects of
lead paint continue to linger in homes across the country. As the lead
paint flakes off, the dust is inhaled, and some kids eat the chips.
Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health
problems in young children, including damage to the kidneys, the brain,
and bone marrow. Even low levels of lead in pregnant women, infants,
and children can affect cognitive abilities and fetal organ development
and lead to behavioral problems.
Over 430,000 children in America have dangerously high blood lead
levels. This is a particularly serious problem for Illinois, which has
the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the nation. In Chicago
alone, 6,000 children have elevated blood lead levels.
In 1992 Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act. The law required the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, to promulgate regulations by October 1996 regarding contractors
engaged in home renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-
based paint hazards. Renovation and repair of older residences is the
principal source of lead-paint exposure to U.S. children. According to
Federal studies, a large majority of the approximately 20 to 30 million
renovations done on older homes each year are done without lead-safe
cleanup and contamination practices.
The EPA analysis has found that a lead paint regulation would protect
1.4 million children and prevent 28,000 lead-related illnesses every
year. Such a regulation would also lead to a net economic benefit of
between $2.7 billion and $4.2 billion each year.
Despite the clear health and economic benefits, these regulations are
now 9 years overdue, and there is no sign that EPA is moving any closer
to issuing the required rules. Last month, I joined with Senator Boxer
and Representatives Waxman, Lynch, and Towns to express our concern
about EPA's complete disregard of the statutory mandate to issue lead
paint regulations.
To address the problem, I have introduced an amendment that would
stop EPA from spending money on any actions that are contrary to
Congress' 1992 mandate to issue lead paint regulations, including any
delaying of the regulations. I thank the managers of this bill, Senator
Burns and Senator Dorgan, for their support of this amendment and for
including it in the bill.
I hope EPA will read this amendment and understand that the time for
these common-sense lead regulations is long overdue.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2006. This bill provides approximately $26.2 billion in
discretionary spending--approximately $542 million over the President's
request--for the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Indian Health Service, most agencies of the Interior Department--
except the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Foundation on the
Arts and the Humanities. I commend the members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and in particular, the efforts of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for completing this appropriation
bill in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, as is the case with many of the appropriations bills
that come to the floor, this bill and its accompanying report contains
earmarks and pork projects which have not been authorized or requested.
The bill provides funding for critical programs like forest health and
restoration, superfund cleanup, the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
and PILT, but all too often, many of these accounts are eroded by
unnecessary, unrequested earmarks.
This is especially frustrating given the $600 million annual
maintenance backlog that is crippling the National Park system. There
is not a single member of this body who does not have a National Park
or monument, or other Park Service unit in his or her State that is not
in need of attention. And while curbing the use of earmarks might not
solve our Nation's enormous deficit or save our National Parks from
long-term dilapidation, doing so would be a good step in repairing our
broken appropriations process.
Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill or
its accompanying report: $875,000 for a new water storage tank in the
Town of Westerly, RI; $1,000,000 for water treatment projects in the
Town of Waitsfield, VT; $2,465,000 for sudden oak death research;
$200,000 for a poultry science project at Stephen F. Austin State
University, Texas; $1,000,000 for statewide cesspool replacement in the
County of Maui, HI; $1,800,000 for eider and sea otter recovery work at
the Alaska SeaLife Center; $1,114,000 for a research laboratory in
Sitka, AK; $500,000 for the University of Northern Iowa to develop new
environmental technologies for small business outreach; $250,000 for
paper industry byproduct waste reduction research in Wisconsin;
$500,000 to continue research on pallid sturgeon spawning in the
Missouri River; $400,000 to complete a bear DNA sampling study in
Montana--the fourth consecutive year this earmark has been added to an
appropriations vehicle; $450,000 for a well monitoring project in
Hawaii; $5,100,000 to complete the visitor center at the Little Rock
Central High School National Historic Site, Arkansas; $6,059,000 to
rehab bathhouses at Hot Springs National Park, AR; $160,000 for soil
survey mapping in Wyoming;

[[Page S7596]]

$400,000 for studies on the impact of lead mining in the Mark Twain
National Forest; $500,000 for restoration at the Mark Twain Boyhood
Home National Historic Landmark in Missouri.
In what has become perhaps one of the greatest examples of pork
barrel politics, the Forest Service has lost more than $850 million
since 1982 on timber sales and the construction of access roads for
commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. More than 4,000
miles of these roads criss-cross the Tongass and have accrued at least
$100 million in deferred maintenance while serving little public
purpose. And every year, Congress continues to appropriate funds to
build new roads without accounting for the encumbrance imposed by
existing roads. I support commercial logging, but not when it requires
Federal subsidies that offer no return to the taxpayer. These federally
funded roads are meant to stabilize the price of timber logged from the
Tongass, but the program actually costs the Federal treasury tens of
millions of dollars each year--nearly $48 million in fiscal year 2004
alone--because the value of Tongass lumber is not competitive and so
the Forest Service takes a loss on almost every timber contract it
manages. To clarify, Mr. President, that is hundreds of millions in
Federal subsidies just to lose hundreds of millions in unprofitable
logging.
Mark Twain, a cynic of politicians and government, once wrote: ``One
of the first achievements of the legislature was to institute a ten-
thousand-dollar agricultural fair to show off forty dollars worth of
pumpkins.'' I can only speculate what Mark Twain would say about the
egregious waste of taxpayer money allocated to continue the timber
subsidy program in the Tongass National Forest.
I am pleased to have joined with Senator Sununu and others in
offering an amendment which would prohibit funding for road building in
the Tongas National Forest. I hope my colleagues' will support this
amendment.
Many of my colleagues may have forgotten, but it is a violation of
Senate rules to legislate on an appropriation bill. Directing or
authorizing policy is a function reserved for the authorizing
committees, not the appropriations committee. As is done far to
frequently, this appropriations bill includes a variety of policy
changes. Examples include: Language that authorizes the construction of
a replacement IHS facility in Nome, AK, on land owned by the Sound
Health Corporation; Language that allows the Secretary of the Interior
to collect parking fees at the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial; Language that
restricts the use of Forest Service answering machines during business
hours unless the answering machine includes an option that enables
callers to reach an individual. Why is this appearing in an
appropriation bill? Perhaps the appropriators could exert jurisdiction
over the waiting lines at the DMV?
Also, language that requires National Recreation Reservation Service
call centers to be located within the United States and language that
extends Abandoned Mine Land program until June 30, 2006. This is the
third time the AML program has been extended via the appropriations
process.
I may not have qualms with many of these particular expenditures and
policy items. Some of them may be truly needed and deserving of swift
passage. However, it is the casual disregard for Senate procedure that
concerns me deeply. We need to be protecting the American taxpayer, not
waving rules and passing appropriation bills with wasteful spending. We
need to be thinking about the future generations who are going to be
paying the tab for our continued spending, not delivering pork projects
to special interests and their lobbyists. Surely, my colleagues are
aware of the fiscal challenges facing this Nation. The national debate
is consumed by questions like: How will we pay for rising Medicare and
Medicaid costs? Will we be protected from rising energy costs? Will
Social Security be there for our children? The answers to those
questions fall to the Congress my friends.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to thank a lot of folks for their
work on this bill we have considered today and over the last few days.
This has been a bill we have worked our way through. I wish we could
have sped it up. I thank the minority staff, Peter Kiefhaber and
Rachael Taylor and Brooke Thomas. Of course, I thank my good friend
from North Dakota who has really been good to work with. Also, over on
our side, I thank Bruce Evans, Rebecca Benn, Leif Fonnesbeck, Ginny
James, Ryan Thomas, Michele Gordon, and Ellis Fisher. I thank that
staff because they have done yeomen's work. They have worked very long
hours in order to pass this bill.
I ask the Senator, do you have any closing remarks?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Burns, who I
think has done a wonderful job. I appreciate working with him and his
staff. I think this is a good bill, produced under difficult
circumstances. This bill is actually substantially below the current
fiscal year's spending.
The professional staff on the majority side--Virginia James, Leif
Fonnesbeck, Ryan Thomas, Rebecca Benn, and Michele Gordon--have done a
great job. Also, I thank Rachael Taylor on the minority side. And Bruce
Evans and Peter Kiefhaber, the two clerks, both have done a lot of work
to get us to this point. I want them to know how much we appreciate
their work.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, 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. The minority leader.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Casts His 7,000th Rollcall Vote

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next vote that will be cast by my friend
from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, the junior Senator from New
Jersey, will be his 7,000th vote.
Senator Lautenberg was elected in 1982 to the Senate, and served
three terms before taking a ``sabbatical'' in 2000. I repeat, he was
not defeated, he took a ``sabbatical.'' He decided to take leave of the
Senate for a while. He ran again in 2002, when Senator Torricelli
retired, and the Democrats were desperate for someone who could win in
New Jersey. He stepped forward because he is always a sure winner.
Senator Lautenberg has the rare distinction of having held both of New
Jersey's Senate seats.
Senator Lautenberg may be a ``freshman'' of sorts, but the only other
two Senators from New Jersey who have cast more rollcall votes than the
junior Senator from New Jersey, my friend Senator Lautenberg, are
Harrison Williams, who cast 8,349 votes over the course of his career,
and Clifford Case, who cast 7,684 votes. Senator Lautenberg is third,
having cast more votes than Senator Bradley, for example.
Senator Lautenberg's parents were poor but hard-working immigrants
who came to America through Ellis Island. Senator Lautenberg joined the
Army when he was 18 and served in the European Theater during World War
II. When he returned from the war, he went to Columbia University on
the GI bill. Then he and two friends started a payroll company. It was
very small. They started from scratch. But they did not just start a
company, they started an entire industry: computer services.
Today, that company--that little startup company, ADP--has annual
sales of almost $8 billion a year, and employs 42,000 people worldwide.
It issues the paycheck of one out of every six private sector workers
in America, and it processes over 850 million investor transactions and
communications every year.
After establishing and running one of the most successful businesses
in America, Senator Lautenberg decided to ``give something back,'' so
he became a commissioner at the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey. Then after serving as a commissioner at the Port Authority of
New York and

[[Page S7597]]

New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg became Senator Frank Lautenberg. Senator
Lautenberg's motto is ``Only in America.''
He has done many great things legislatively. They are too many to
list here tonight. But one thing I will always look back at, as to what
this great Senator did, is what he did for my children. Years ago, when
we traveled back and forth across the country, my children were
allergic to cigarette smoke, literally allergic. They did not like it,
and the little ones cried. Children in America no longer have to worry
about that because of the Senator from New Jersey. He did a favor for
me--because it made it so much easier on my children--and the rest of
America.
Senator Lautenberg is a great Senator. The people of New Jersey are
so fortunate this good man, who was financially set, would take public
service as his life's work. I so admire him. I know the rest of my
colleagues join me in congratulating the ``junior'' Senator from New
Jersey on this significant milestone in an already accomplished career.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for
those kind comments. I had hoped he would go on a little longer.
(Laughter.)
But, in any event, I thank you and all of my colleagues.
There are 7,000 votes. If I were asked to recite which of those I
liked the best or which of those I disliked the most, I would be hard
pressed to remember them. But the fact is, even though we have
disagreements on some issues and agreements on others, I speak
sincerely when I say I am proud to serve with all of you.
I know each of us has a responsibility that carries way outside this
Chamber. We make the decisions here. But the desire to be of service
and the obligation originates in places that we are all too familiar
with. So we have differences.
I am going to stick up for my views, and I know others will stick up
for theirs. The fact is, we are here to serve. I am proud to serve with
each and every one of you. I am grateful for the commentary and thank
you all very much.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, being the junior Senator from New Jersey,
I must say that of all of the people I have watched live the American
dream and then believe that it is their obligation to give back--the
distinguished minority leader itemized the life of Frank Lautenberg--no
one cares more about that American dream and making sure it is
available for his children and all the children of America. I have to
say as a colleague but, more importantly, as a friend, I am honored to
serve with you every day, and I appreciate very much what you have done
for the State of New Jersey. I know the people of the State of New
Jersey care very deeply about Frank Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a number of people have asked about the
schedule. We will have two more votes tonight. We will have a vote on
final passage and then on a motion to proceed to the CAFTA bill. We
will be addressing CAFTA tonight, and we will be on it--there are 20
hours--tonight and through tomorrow. We will be completing two
appropriations bills before we leave this week, which means tonight
will be busy. We will have no rollcall votes after the two which will
be back to back shortly. We will be debating CAFTA through tomorrow,
and then we will do two other appropriations bills sometime before we
leave. It means that we may well be here Friday to vote, which we
talked about earlier this morning.
In addition, as we said this morning, both the Democratic leader and
I, when we come back after our recess, it is going to be important for
people to recognize the huge amount that we have to do. We are
competing with people going back to their States, people who are saying
we need to work Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, but not Fridays
and Mondays because we have other things to do. We are going to have to
have people here voting on Mondays when we announce that and also on
Fridays. But with that, we have two votes tonight. They will be back to
back, and no more rollcall votes after those two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent that
these next two votes be 10 minutes each. Everybody is here--10 minutes
on the first one, 10 minutes on the second one. Then we can move on to
the CAFTA bill at that time. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill, as amended, pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is absent due to death in family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Bennett
Coburn
Gregg
Lieberman
Martinez
McCain
The bill (H.R. 2361), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________