[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14284-14304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2361, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Burns (for Voinovich) amendment No. 1010, to prohibit the 
     use of funds to take certain land into trust without the 
     consent of the Governor of the State in which the land is 
     located.


                           Amendment No. 1022

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. First of 
all, it is on behalf of the majority leader and minority leader. It 
relates to congressional security.
  This issue relates to a recent DC Board zoning adjustment granting a 
building height variance for a developer here in the vicinity of the 
Capitol.
  Without going through some sensitive detail, let me simply say our 
two leaders have offered this amendment to prevent this variance from 
going into effect until the Capitol Police Board, with the consent of 
the Senate and House leadership, certifies that such a variance will 
not impact negatively on congressional security and increase Federal 
expenditures related to congressional security.
  This amendment does not preclude development of the property, but it 
ensures that existing height regulations are honored and the security 
of the Capitol and all the people who work here is protected.
  So I offer this amendment for the majority leader and minority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a very important little conference 
to go to at 3:15. I see the ranking member of this committee on the 
floor. He did a great job on Friday, I am told, flying solo. So I am 
going to go to that meeting and just kind of turn the reins over to 
Senator Dorgan, my good friend from North Dakota.
  We will start going through some amendments and start working this 
bill out this afternoon. It is our intention not to keep the Senate 
open all that long today. We will start working on those amendments as 
soon as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] for Mr. Frist, for 
     himself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1022.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CONGRESSIONAL SECURITY RELATING TO CERTAIN REAL 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b)--

[[Page 14285]]

       (1) the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustments 
     and the District of Columbia Zoning Commission may not take 
     any action to grant any variance relating to the property 
     located at 51 Louisiana Avenue NW, Square 631, Lot 17 in the 
     District of Columbia; and
       (2) if any variance described under paragraph (1) is 
     granted before the effective date of this section, such 
     variance shall be set aside and shall have no force or 
     effect.
       (b) Conditions for Variance.--A variance described under 
     subsection (a) may be granted or shall be given force or 
     effect if--
       (1) the Capitol Police Board makes a determination that any 
     such variance shall not--
       (A) negatively impact congressional security; and
       (B) increase Federal expenditures relating to congressional 
     security;
       (2) the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the 
     Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives 
     approve such determination; and
       (3) the Capitol Police Board certifies the determination in 
     writing to the District of Columbia Board of Zoning 
     Adjustments and the District of Columbia Zoning Commission.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and apply to the remaining 
     portion of the fiscal year in which enacted and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending that 
requires a vote?
  Mr. BURNS. We do not know yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment that was offered has been set 
aside.
  Mr. BURNS. It has been set aside.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1023

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Barbara Boxer, for herself, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senators Clinton 
and Schumer of New York, and Senator Obama of Illinois, and send it to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for Mrs. Boxer, 
     for herself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
     Schumer, and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 1023.

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

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the Administrator of the 
 Environmental Protection Agency to accept, consider, or rely on third-
  party intentional dosing human studies for pesticides or to conduct 
            intentional dosing human studies for pesticides)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency--
       (1) to accept, consider, or rely on third-party intentional 
     dosing human studies for pesticides; or
       (2) to conduct intentional dosing human studies for 
     pesticides.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside so I can offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1024

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 1024.

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

(Purpose: To authorize the imposition of fees for overnight lodging at 
             certain properties at Fort Baker, California)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 114 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (16 U.S.C. 
     460bb-3; Public Law 108-7), is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, including 
     utility expenses of the National Park Service or lessees of 
     the National Park Service'' after ``Fort Baker properties''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting between the first and second sentences the 
     following: ``In furtherance of a lease entered into under the 
     first sentence, the Secretary of the Interior or a lessee may 
     impose fees on overnight lodgers at Fort Baker properties.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.


                           Amendment No. 1025

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1025.

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

(Purpose: To require Federal reserve banks to transfer certain surplus 
funds to the general fund of the Treasury, to be used for the provision 
                    of Indian health care services)

       At the end of title IV, add the following:
       Sec. 429. (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Federal Reserve 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 789 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Additional Transfers for Fiscal Year 2006.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal reserve banks shall transfer 
     from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of 
     the Treasury, a total amount of $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2006.
       ``(2) Allocation by fed.--Of the total amount required to 
     be paid by the Federal reserve banks under paragraph (1) for 
     fiscal year 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System shall determine the amount that each such bank 
     shall pay in such fiscal year.
       ``(3) Replenishment of surplus fund prohibited.--No Federal 
     reserve bank may replenish the surplus fund of such bank by 
     the amount of any transfer by such bank under paragraph (1) 
     during fiscal year 2006.''.
       (b) Use of Surplus.--Of amounts transferred to the general 
     fund of the Treasury under section 7(d) of the Federal 
     Reserve Act, as added by this section--
       (1) $140,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary 
     of the Interior for use by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
       (2) $860,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services for use by the Director of the 
     Indian Health Service in providing Indian health care 
     services and facilities.

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


                           Amendment No. 1026

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu], for himself 
     and Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1026.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to plan, design, study, or 
  construct certain forest development roads in the Tongass National 
                                Forest)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:

[[Page 14286]]

       Sec. 4___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to plan, design, study, or construct new forest 
     development roads in the Tongass National Forest for the 
     purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or 
     individuals.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my behalf, but 
also on behalf of Senator Bingaman, and I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators McCain and Feingold be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SUNUNU. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It reads very 
simply: To place a restriction on the use of Federal taxpayer funds to 
be used to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest on behalf 
of private companies. This is a case where we need to be very careful 
about providing Federal subsidies for private corporations.
  This was a topic of discussion during some of the remarks I made on 
the Energy bill and I have raised this issue many times in the past. We 
need to be careful about using Federal resources to provide subsidies 
for private companies because it distorts the marketplace, promotes 
inefficiencies, and isn't good stewardship of Federal resources.
  In 2004, the Federal Government, through the Forest Service, spent 
between $45 and $50 million building logging roads in this segment of 
the national forest. They took in roughly $1 million in revenues. I 
would like to make sure we give the benefit of the doubt any time we 
are spending money. We understand it can have economic impacts, it can 
create jobs and the like, but to spend $45 or $50 million on programs 
that provide $1 million in revenues when there is a timber sale seems 
like an enormous inequity to me. If you compound these shortfalls over 
20 years, the losses amount to between $750 and $850 million. I don't 
think this is an appropriate use of Federal resources.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Bingaman. I hope it 
will restore a little bit of fiscal restraint and balance to this 
Interior appropriations bill. It is important to recognize what this 
amendment does not do because, as the debate is carried forward, I want 
to make sure that concerns raised speak to the amendment and not to 
other issues.
  What this amendment does not do is prohibit logging in the Tongass or 
any other segment of our national forest. It doesn't change policy 
regarding logging in any substantive way. It doesn't curtail uses in 
the national forest, again, in the Tongass or anywhere else in the 
country. I come from a State, New Hampshire, that has a great tradition 
of multiple use in our national forest system--recreational use, 
economic operations, timber program, hunting, fishing. It is a true 
multiuse forest. I believe that general approach to our national forest 
makes the most sense.
  Finally, this amendment does not restrict the use of private funds to 
build logging roads. I don't think that is inappropriate in any way. If 
we have a timber sale on any segment of the national forest, that 
should be conducted in an open, transparent way, but the market should 
dictate the attractiveness of a particular cut, the sale of that 
timber, the pricing, and the like.
  People who speak to this amendment may well raise concerns about 
regulation, about legal barriers and legal obstacles, about subsidies 
that other timber concerns in other countries may enjoy. Those are all 
valid concerns. I have stepped forward to try to address those concerns 
to allow timber management, an important segment of our economy, to 
operate in a fair and reasonable way. But this amendment doesn't 
address or solve or make worse any of those concerns. Those are issues 
that we need to continue to address. We should have reasonable 
regulatory processes that are understandable, that allow appropriate 
timber sales and logging operations to continue on national forest 
land. We should do everything in our power to minimize frivolous 
lawsuits throughout our economy but also those types of frivolous 
lawsuits that might necessarily hinder and raise the cost of the timber 
program. And, of course, there are subsidies being provided by other 
countries. New Hampshire and Canada share a border, and the issue of 
subsidies in the timber industry--placing operations in the United 
States at a competitive disadvantage--is something that I have dealt 
with time and time again.
  But all this amendment does is say we will no longer use Federal 
funds to support the building, construction, and planning and 
development of roads for private entities in the Tongass. When you have 
a cost of $45 or $50 million for revenue of just $1 million, you don't 
have to be an economist to understand why this amendment makes good, 
common sense for the taxpayer.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been 
endorsed by a number of groups who are looking at this matter from a 
purely fiscal perspective and doing what is right for taxpayers. It 
reflects much more commonsense use of Federal resources.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1029

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Kerry and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Kerry, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1029.

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

 (Purpose: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 429.(a) From any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     obligated or appropriated, there are appropriated 
     $600,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     for the Veterans Health Administration.
       (b) The amount appropriated under subsection (a) is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).


                 Amendments Nos. 1030 And 1031, En Bloc

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered sequentially, offered by Senator 
Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1030 and 1031.

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


                           amendment no. 1030

  (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to funds appropriated for 
            Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary schools)

       On page 182, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 110.(a)(1) For fiscal year 2006 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year, any funds made available by this Act for the 
     Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute and Haskell Indian 
     Nations University for postsecondary programs of the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs in excess of the amount made available for 
     those postsecondary programs for fiscal year 2005 shall be 
     allocated in direct proportion to the need of the schools, as 
     determined in accordance with the postsecondary funding 
     formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education Programs.
       (2) For fiscal year 2007 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall use the postsecondary 
     funding formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education 
     Programs based on the needs of the Southwest Indian 
     Polytechnic Institute and Haskell Indian Nations University 
     to justify the amounts submitted as part of the budget 
     request of the Department of the Interior.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $178,730 is 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Southwest Indian 
     Polytechnic Institute.

[[Page 14287]]




                           amendment no. 1031

(Purpose: To set aside additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps 
                               projects)

       On page 130, line 2, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,250,000''.
       On page 138, line 7, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.
       On page 146, line 19, strike ``$1,937,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.
       On page 211, line 25, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Carlos Lazo

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Friday I brought to the floor a picture 
of a wonderful young soldier. This soldier is a man who fled from Cuba 
on a raft in 1992. His name is Carlos Lazo.
  Sergeant Lazo has not been able to bring his family to this country 
from Cuba. He kept in contact with them, visiting them a number of 
times under the rules that allow Cuban Americans to visit close 
relatives in Cuba once a year.
  In 1998, Carlos joined the National Guard. They were mobilized in 
2003, deployed to Iraq in March of 2004. In June of 2004, Sergeant Lazo 
came back to the United States from Iraq on a 2-week R&R. He hoped to 
use that time to make his annual visit to Cuba to see his sons. But 
just before Sergeant Lazo came home on leave, the President announced 
new regulations that would limit Cuban-American family visits to once 
every 3 years. Even though Sergeant Lazo got to the Miami airport a day 
before the new regulation went into effect, our State Department 
prohibited him from boarding a charter flight to Cuba to visit his 
children.
  Mr. Lazo, in the country of Iraq wearing America's uniform, won the 
Bronze Star award. Let me show you the award, the Bronze Star medal 
given SPC Carlos Lazo, Charlie Company, 181st Support Battalion, for 
exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a combat medic with 
Charlie Company. It goes on to talk about his heroism and courage. Here 
is an American soldier who went to fight in Iraq because his country 
asked him to fight in Iraq. He was fighting for freedom. This American 
soldier wins the Bronze Star fighting in Iraq. He comes home to this 
country and his young child in Cuba has a very high temperature and is 
in the hospital, quite ill. He wants to go to Cuba to visit his child. 
After fighting in Iraq, he is told he doesn't have the freedom to 
travel to Cuba to see his sick child. He came to see me the other day 
and asked if I could help him because I have been involved in 
legislation in the Senate dealing with travel to Cuba. I happen to 
believe that we ought to treat Cuba just as we do China and Vietnam, 
both Communist countries. Our official policy is that we will advance 
the interests of each through engagement. Travel and trade will be 
beneficial to moving China and Vietnam towards greater human rights. 
But we believe that is not the case with Cuba because we have clamped 
down on trips to Cuba.
  Now a fellow like Carlos, an American soldier who is willing to fight 
in Iraq and wins a Bronze Star, is told, You can't visit your children 
in Cuba except for once every 3 years. Even when your child is ill in a 
hospital, we won't allow you to visit him.
  He asked the question last week: What about freedom? I was fighting 
for freedom. I don't have the freedom to go travel 90 miles off the 
shores of Florida to the country of Cuba to see a sick child who is in 
the hospital?
  I called the Department of the Treasury, which runs the agency that 
would provide the licenses, and asked to speak to the Treasury 
Secretary. He didn't return the call.
  I called the State Department, asked for Condoleezza Rice. She didn't 
return my call. As an aside, I would observe that she was happy to 
return my call when she was up for confirmation on the floor of the 
Senate to be the Secretary of State. But she didn't return my call this 
time. At any rate, her Deputy, Mr. Zoellick, returned the call. I have 
great admiration for him so I was pleased to talk to him.
  I also called the White House and talked to Karl Rove on Friday 
afternoon. I just got a call back from the White House saying that Mr. 
Rove will not be contacting me today. In fact, Mr. Zoellick will be 
handling this. I have not yet heard from Mr. Zoellick, but he indicated 
he would be getting back to me.
  When I talked to the Treasury Department, they said: The regulations 
that came into effect that President Bush has announced provide no 
humanitarian relief at all.
  It means that you can't travel to Cuba except once every 3 years to 
see your family.
  I said: Surely there must be some humanitarian exceptions to that. 
This guy wins the Bronze Star fighting for this country, and he doesn't 
have the freedom to go visit a sick kid?
  They said: There are no exceptions. We have people calling us saying: 
My mother is dying in Cuba. I need to go see her. We tell them no 
because there are no exceptions.
  I said what on Earth are you thinking about? You created the 
regulation. Don't tell me the regulations prevent you from doing the 
right thing. You created them; change them. So here it is, on Monday 
afternoon, this Sergeant Lazo--Carlos Lazo--still asks the question: 
Why, when I fought in Iraq, demonstrated courage under battlefield 
conditions, won a Bronze Star, do I come home and find I don't have the 
freedom to visit my sick child 90 miles away from the shores of 
America?
  That is unbelievable. Not surprising to me, but unbelievable.
  I will show you a picture of another young woman who visited my 
office. This is Joan Scott. Joan went to Cuba, but she didn't get 
permission. She didn't know she had to get permission. She went to Cuba 
because she wanted to distribute free Bibles. She took a supply of 
Bibles and went to Cuba to distribute them. Guess what this Government 
did. They tracked her down and slapped a $10,000 fine on her. Why? She 
didn't have a license to go to Cuba.
  Fidel Castro has been sticking his finger in our eye for many years. 
But if we think we are slapping him around by restricting the rights of 
the American people to travel there, we are seriously mistaken.
  The quickest way to get Castro out of office in Cuba--and he has 
lived through 10 Presidencies--is through trade and travel, just as we 
do with China and South Vietnam, both of which are also Communist 
countries. Trade and travel will rapidly advance the day in which Cuba 
will have a new government. To penalize and punish American citizens--
someone who wants to distribute free Bibles in Cuba, or someone who 
wants to take his father's ashes with his last request to distribute 
his ashes on the grounds of a church he once ministered in in Cuba, to 
punish these people--and this Government is doing that--is 
unbelievable.
  In this case, it is Sergeant Lazo who is penalized. So this Monday 
afternoon he waits and I wait. Will I get a call from the State 
Department saying, No, our rules in America are that you can fight for 
America and for freedom, but you don't have the freedom to go see a 
sick kid? If that is the result, that is unbelievable.
  Mr. President, we will see if I get a telephone call this afternoon. 
If they don't find a humanitarian way to provide exceptions, not just 
for Sergeant Lazo but for someone whose father or mother is dying and 
they need to go to Cuba, then we are going to vote on that on this 
appropriations bill. Yes, it will take a suspension and it will take a 
two-thirds vote. But we will see who wants to stand up for the 
interests of a young soldier who was willing to fight and die for this 
country but doesn't have the freedom to go see his sick son. We will 
see who is willing to stand up for his interests and the interests of 
the basic proposition that you ought to be free to travel. We will see 
at the end of today.
  I say, again, I fully intend to offer an amendment to this bill, and 
it will require suspension of the rules, but I will offer that and ask 
my colleagues to vote on it.
  Mr. President, there is more to say, but I will reserve that until I 
get a call from the State Department today telling us what they have 
decided to do.

[[Page 14288]]




                           Amendment No. 1032

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
underlying amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk an amendment 
by Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows: 
       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Durbin, 
     produces an amendment numbered 1032.

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

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds in contravention of the 
 Executive order relating to Federal actions to address environmental 
      justice in minority populations and low-income populations)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of, or to delay the implementation 
     of, Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. 
     Reg. 7629; relating to Federal actions to address 
     environmental justice in minority populations and low-income 
     populations).

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have spent the last nearly 2 hours prior 
to coming to the floor chairing a hearing of the Democratic Policy 
Committee on waste, fraud, and abuse, dealing with the Halliburton 
Corporation with respect to contracting in Iraq. I don't--along with my 
colleagues who joined me--take pleasure at holding hearings to expose 
waste and abuse and, I think, fraud. We do it because the authorizing 
committees in this Congress have decided they are not interested in 
having these kinds of hearings.
  Let me just give you some idea of what we have learned at the five 
hearings that I have held on this subject. Today, at the hearing, an 
employee of Halliburton who was providing food service in a portion of 
Iraq to our troops, said something to me that was almost unbelievable. 
He said they were routinely serving food to American troops that had 
outdated stamps on it. When you go to the grocery store, you see that 
food is going to be good through a certain date. They were getting that 
kind of food that was out of date and serving it to American soldiers.
  I understand greed because we see enough of it in some of these 
circumstances at these hearings. I don't understand the shameful 
behavior of somebody who is charging this Government for feeding our 
troops, and then would feed our troops food that is date stamped out of 
date. The Halliburton Corporation, by the way, said that it was feeding 
42,000 troops a day in one contract, and it turns out that only 14,000 
were eating. They were charging for 28,000 meals they were not serving. 
Now we discover, more than that--more than charging for 42,000 meals 
when only serving 14,000 meals--they were serving food that was out of 
date to American soldiers. That is unbelievable to me.
  We send these soldiers to a war zone and we contracted that company 
to feed them, and they feed them food that is date stamped out of date. 
Nobody wants to investigate these things. No hearings. It is eerily 
quiet here. Normally, when you see fraud, waste, and abuse, we have 
people who are interested in investigating that and putting a stop to 
it right now. We have heard so many tales of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Halliburton orders 50,000 pounds of nails that are the wrong size, so 
they are laying on the sand in Iraq. Just another bit of waste. It is 
$40 for a case of pop or soda and $7,000 a month to lease SUVs. There 
are $85,000 trucks that are abandoned on the roads and are torched 
because they had a flat tire or a plugged fuel pump. These are all 
stories we have heard at our hearings, which the authorizing committees 
won't have. They have been asked to have them, but they will not. I 
have chaired five hearings--because they won't--on these issues. It 
doesn't serve American troops. It disserves American troops to allow 
this sort of thing to happen.
  When we get involved in circumstances where our country has an 
obligation to the troops we ask to go into harm's way, we have a 
responsibility to make sure there is not corruption and looting and 
thieving going on.
  We had a woman testify today, Bunnatine Greenhouse. She was the 
highest civilian official in the Pentagon dealing with Corps of 
Engineer projects. She was called in at one point and told: Either you 
can retire or you are going to be demoted. We are not putting up with 
your objections anymore.
  She was objecting to sole-source contracts being given to 
Halliburton--no bids. What is the result of that? Headline after 
headline about waste and fraud. Here is what she said today:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to 
     contracts awarded to KBR [a subsidiary of Halliburton] 
     represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I 
     have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

  By the way, she had a meeting last week with the acting general 
counsel, I believe, of the Corps of Engineers, and she was told that it 
would not be in her best interest to speak publicly about these things. 
Surprise, surprise. Don't worry so much about the waste or the fraud or 
the abuse; worry about the people who are going to speak up, who have 
the courage to step out and say here is what is going on, and I am 
willing to risk my career to talk about it.
  Good for this woman. It took courage for her to come forward today. 
She was one of the top senior officials in that whole pyramid. The old 
boys just worked around her and worked their will so they could give 
contracts worth billions and billions of dollars to one company--
Halliburton--and then later to some others, but basically Halliburton.
  Then we hear from a witness named Rory, who worked in the food 
facilities in Iraq, that Halliburton was routinely serving out-of-date 
food to American troops. I thought there wasn't much more that could 
shock me after having my fifth hearing on this, but there is.
  I just say this to the authorizing committees: The minute you decide 
to do the kinds of accountability and oversight hearings Congress is 
supposed to do, I will not hold any more hearings. It was in 1941 when 
a Senator on the floor of the Senate, named Harry Truman, with a 
Democratic President in the White House, initiated a series of hearings 
that ended up being hundreds of hearings. They documented massive 
amounts of fraud in defense contracting during a war. It probably 
wasn't pleasant for a Democratic President to have a Democratic Senator 
challenging them on what was going on with respect to waste, fraud, and 
abuse, but Harry Truman did it.
  Now we have a Republican President, a Republican-controlled Congress, 
substantial waste, fraud, and abuse, and nobody wants to hold hearings 
because they are worried it will embarrass somebody. This isn't about 
embarrassing anybody; it is about standing up for the interests of the 
American taxpayer, for the interests of the American troops, and 
deciding that during war it is unconscionable for people to profiteer, 
and for companies to cheat and defraud the Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, these days, when you read the headlines and the audit 
reports, you discover that what this is all about is a slap on the 
wrist, a pat on the back, and then a continuation of the buddy system.
  A fellow who testified today with respect to the food service in Iraq 
said that when Government auditors came, they were told: You are not to 
be available to speak to Government auditors.

[[Page 14289]]

And they were told this: If you are caught speaking to a Government 
auditor, one of two things will happen. Either, A, you will be fired 
or, B, you will be sent to a base where there is active fighting. It's 
your choice.
  I could not believe that. He said it again. He said it a second time. 
When Government auditors came to audit the Halliburton food contracts, 
they were ordered not to speak to the auditors, ordered not to respond 
to auditors' questions, ordered not to be available. And if they were 
caught answering questions of auditors, they would either be sent to a 
base where there was active fighting, or they would be fired. So that 
is some of what is going on.
  The question is, Does anybody care? Will they, after 2 years of our 
holding five straight hearings now--when I say ``they,'' I mean the 
authorizing committees--perhaps begin to hold hearings themselves? 
Would it be embarrassing to ask that committees to do what they are 
supposed to do--provide oversight? When you have $10 billion or $12 
billion lining the pockets of big contractors whose documented abuse of 
that money is legend--don't take it from me, take it from the facts 
that are on the record--will the committees of the Congress do what 
they have a responsibility to do? We will see.
  I wanted to point out that this afternoon was spent by me--at least 
from 1:30 and for the first 2 hours--listening to things that I find 
shameful with respect to practices by some companies--notably 
Halliburton--in the country of Iraq, profiteering during a war.
  Mr. President, the last time we held a hearing dealing with Iraq, we 
had one of the people there hold up a towel, and he said: My job was to 
buy towels, among other things. I was a procurement agent. I was to buy 
towels--the hand towels you would use in the bathroom in the morning.
  He showed us the hand towel he was going to buy, and then he showed 
us the one he did buy. The one he did buy had a logo of the company on 
it--the contracting company. The contracting company wanted him to buy 
a higher priced towel, a more expensive towel, so they could put their 
logo on it. Waste of the money? I think so. It is unbelievable when you 
see all that is going on and nobody is minding the store.
  I hope perhaps one day this Congress, in a deep slumber about 
accountability and oversight responsibilities, will wake up and do what 
it is required to do. At that point, we will no longer have to do 
hearings in our policy committee. Until that point, however, we intend 
to continue such hearings.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been quite a controversy 
developing in recent weeks about the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. I have spoken on the Senate floor a couple of times about 
the subject, and I wish to address it now, particularly because of 
actions that were taken last week.
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a Board of Directors that 
is headed by a Mr. Kenneth Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson decided to take it 
upon himself to describe public broadcasting as having a liberal bias. 
Because it has a liberal bias, according to the Chairman of the Board 
of Directors, appointed by President Bush, he hired a consultant, a 
fellow who had worked for 20 years at a journalism center founded by 
the American Conservative Union. He hired a consultant for just over 
$14,000 without the knowledge of the Board of Directors to evaluate 
particularly programming by the Bill Moyers show called ``Now.'' The 
Inspector General at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now 
investigating that expenditure of money.
  It is curious to me that the American people, by a wide margin, 
believe that public television and public radio, National Public Radio, 
for example, and PBS, is not biased, is good information, provides good 
programming, balanced programming, and yet the Chairman of the Board, 
who is partisan, has made it his cause to tell the American people 
there is a liberal bias in public broadcasting over television and 
radio on NPR and so on.
  Most of us, of course, know public television by Big Bird, Ernie, the 
Cookie Monster, the Count, Grover. I was thinking, when I have heard 
the discussions about public broadcasting by the Chairman of the Board, 
Mr. Tomlinson, I was thinking of Oscar the Grouch, who complains about 
everything. I would not take the analogy so far because Oscar the 
Grouch lives in a trash can, but every time he peeks his head out 
something is wrong. He complains about everything, Oscar the Grouch.
  Well, maybe we have an Oscar the Grouch running the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. After all, he is a partisan who has decided to 
allege that there is a partisan and liberal bias at the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. Then he hires a conservative to do an evaluation 
of that.
  When he did that with public funding, I asked Mr. Tomlinson, by 
letter, to provide me the information gleaned from this consultant. He 
then sent me the raw data, which was many pages of raw information. I 
have described that on the Senate floor. I will not do that again. He 
told me that it was not a summary but he was completing a summary. I 
have now been given the summary in the last couple of days--I believe 
last Friday.
  In the intervening period, Chairman Tomlinson also decided that his 
candidate to become President of the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, a position that was open, should be assumed by a former 
Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. Over the objections of 
some members of the Board of Directors, he made that happen last week. 
So the former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee is now 
going to become the President of the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, an organization that the Chairman of the Board of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting alleges has a liberal bias. He 
believes that it is political or partisan; therefore, he brings in a 
partisan.
  If a former co-chair of the Democratic National Committee had been 
hired, I assume there would be a howl that one could hear all the way 
to West Virginia coming from this Chamber and the Chamber across the 
hall because they would say: You are politicizing the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. Regrettably, that is exactly what Mr. Tomlinson is 
doing by hiring a former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee.
  Public broadcasting does a real service in this country. There are 
some stories no other broadcasters will do. Do my colleagues think that 
ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX will ever do a no holds barred, in-depth story 
about concentration in the media and about the rules that the Federal 
Communications Commission tried to foist on this country that would 
allow further concentration until they were stopped by the Federal 
courts? Do my colleagues think that would ever be dealt with by the 
major television networks? Not on your life because they are all making 
money consolidating.
  The Federal Communications Commission came up with a goofy rule--one 
that, in my judgment, subverts the interests of the American people--
and said it will be all right if in one major American city one company 
owns eight radio stations, three television stations, the dominant 
newspaper, and the cable company. That is just fine, according to the 
Federal Communications Commission. Well, it is not fine with me. That 
was the quickest and biggest cave-in to the special interests I have 
ever seen in my life, and the Federal court has at this point stopped 
it.
  Guess who did the in-depth reporting, the hard-hitting reporting on 
the concentration of corporate interests in

[[Page 14290]]

broadcasting. Was it CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX News? No, not on your life. 
They would not touch it because they make money continuing the 
concentration. It was public broadcasting. It was Bill Moyers. For 
that, he pays a price. The price he pays: Mr. Tomlinson and others 
accuse him of going astray, a liberal bias.
  When I looked at the papers I was given that represent the raw data 
from the consultant, some of the listings evaluated programming on 
public broadcasting as either anti-Bush or pro-Bush. Is that what we 
are going to do in this country--run our evaluation of whether 
something is fair through a prism of whether it supports our President, 
whoever our President is? Is that the way one would have wanted to 
evaluate public broadcasting when President Clinton was in office--
anti-Clinton, pro-Clinton? I do not think so. That is not the way we 
have a responsibility to evaluate these things.
  This country is still a democracy, a free country. It is not 
unpatriotic to be critical of our Government. In the case of the FCC 
rules, that would allow massive concentration of broadcasting 
properties so that only four or five people will determine what the 
American people by and large will see, hear, and read. When that 
happens, when the FCC tries to do that, it is not unpatriotic to raise 
questions and do in-depth reporting and do tough reporting on it. There 
is nothing unpatriotic about that.
  So the selection of the former Co-Chair of the Republican National 
Committee to be President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 
a step that will injure public broadcasting. The board members who 
objected have told me that they felt the process for the selection of 
the chairman was not fair, and I intend to ask the Inspector General to 
include that question in the investigation that is now ongoing about 
the use of funds for the consultant.
  I believe most of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, 
should care about retaining a strengthened and important public 
broadcasting system in this country. Big Bird is not a Republican or a 
Democrat, nor is the Cookie Monster. This is just good programming. It 
does a disservice to the interests of public broadcasting in this 
country to begin to undermine it by demanding that there is a liberal 
bias, by hiring consultants who themselves come from a conservative 
background with which to make a judgment of whether things are anti- or 
pro-Bush in public programming, and then to engineer the hiring of the 
former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee as President of 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. All of that moves us in the 
direction that injures something very important to this country. My 
hope is at some point we will be able to see progress in putting this 
back together. But there is no question that substantial damage has 
been done to public broadcasting in recent weeks and that damage is 
because of leadership insisting that public broadcasting itself is 
flawed and is at fault.
  I disagree with that. I think the problem is not public broadcasting; 
I think the problem has been the leadership of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting and the engineering of not only a known partisan to 
become president but also a partisan to do an evaluation that was 
destined to show what the Chairman of CPB was alleging.
  Again I take no pleasure in coming to the floor to be critical of Mr. 
Tomlinson, but after what I have read from the consulting report that 
is now being investigated, frankly, I think there is a need to speak up 
and a need to decide that public broadcasting is important to this 
country and worth saving and won't be saved by those who want to drag 
it into the partisan waters.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1035

  Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of my colleague Senator Wyden, I propose an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Wyden, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1035.

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

    (Purpose: To extend the authority for watershed restoration and 
                        enhancement agreements)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1011 
     note; Public Law 105-277), is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year 1999'' and all that follows through ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 1036 and 1037, en bloc

  Mr. DORGAN. I send two amendments to the desk on behalf of my 
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, and ask for their 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Reed, 
     proposes en bloc amendments 1036 and 1037.

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


                           amendment no. 1036

 (Purpose: To modify certain administrative provisions relating to the 
        brownfield site characterization and assessment program)

       On page 198, lines 21 and 22, strike ``Notwithstanding 
     CERCLA 104(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV), appropriated funds for fiscal 
     year 2006'' and insert the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     section 104(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV)), beginning in fiscal 
     year 2006 and thereafter, appropriated funds''.


                           amendment no. 1037

    (Purpose: To authorize recipients of grants provided under the 
 brownfield site characterization and assessment program to use grant 
             funds for reasonable administrative expenses)

       On page 200, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, recipients of 
     grants provided under section 104(k) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)) may use the grant funds for 
     reasonable administrative expenses, as determined by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 1037 to the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. What amendment is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 1037.


                           Amendment No. 1026

  Mr. STEVENS. What is the number of Senator Sununu's amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Sununu's amendment is 1026.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have come to the floor to briefly discuss this 
amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire and 
others and

[[Page 14291]]

tell the Senate this is opening the door to a whole series of 
agreements that were made in previous Congresses and approved by the 
President, and it is a subject I intend to debate at length. I will 
tell the Senate a little bit of history tonight and take an opportunity 
to more subsequently discuss this issue.
  This amendment that has been offered will prevent the use of Federal 
funds to plan, design, study, or construct new forest development roads 
in the Tongass. The Tongass National Forest is our largest national 
forest. It has a southern division and a northern division. When I came 
to the Senate, the harvest level was about 1.5 billion board feet a 
year from the total Tongass. In subsequent years it has been under 
attack severely, until today I think it is less than 17 percent of the 
Tongass is available for harvesting timber.
  This amendment discriminates against Alaska. There are national 
forests in many States and the Forest Service spends a lot of money on 
forest roads, but this would say that only in Alaska can the Forest 
Service be prohibited from spending money for forest roads.
  Let me go back a little bit in the history. I am gathering the 
information we need to address the matter in depth tomorrow and 
subsequently. This area is not unique in the sense of timber harvest. 
The Forest Service follows about the same regulations in Alaska they 
would in any other national forest. The difference is that we had, in 
1980, the Alaskan National Interests Conservation Land Act which 
withdrew a great portion of this forest from any future harvesting of 
timber; then after that we had the Tongass Timber Reform Act which 
further limited the amount that could be harvested from the Tongass; 
and then we had the enormous dispute over roads in the Tongass. This is 
another way to limit the development of Alaska's timber because of the 
policies of our national Government with regard to harvesting the 
national forests.
  The debate over forest roads also has included the question of the 
provisions in the 1980 act which prohibited any further withdrawal of 
Alaska's lands without prior approval of the Congress. This is an 
amendment that looks as if there is an economic concept involved, but 
really it is one of the goals of those who want to limit further use of 
the Tongass to produce timber.
  Regarding the roadless concept, they tried to apply it to our 
national forests, the Tongass National Forest. Because of the 
provisions in the 1980 act which prohibit further withdrawals of 
Alaska's land without prior approval of the Congress, that concept did 
not get applied to the Tongass. The last President did issue an 
Executive order which purported to change that, but that has been 
rescinded as that was an error on the part of the last administration. 
We are operating under the basis that there could be roads built in the 
portions of the Tongass that have not been withdrawn.
  The problem is this: The cost of developing roads in Alaska are 
different from other States. In most States, there is a road 
infrastructure in the area that surrounds the national forest. As a 
matter of fact, most national forests have a Federal highway going 
right through them. Southeast Alaska has no roads. It is an island 
community. There is no connection between those islands. There is no 
attempt to build a highway system in southeast Alaska. As a matter of 
fact, our capital city has no roads that can be used to enter Juneau 
from another area. I think it is the only capital you can reach only by 
boat or air. There is no way to drive to our capital because it is on 
one of the islands I am talking about.
  When we look at the situation of southeast Alaska, we have to realize 
one of the costs of developing a timber industry in southeast Alaska is 
building roads on islands on which there are no roads. They are 
temporary roads built under specification of the Forest Service and 
designed to become wilderness, in effect, once the regrowth is 
commenced.
  What I am saying is, once the timber is harvested, the natural 
product of what we call the ``slash'' that comes from developing and 
cutting the timber is laid across the ground, and within a very few 
years that area will be totally grown over again. In most instances, we 
will not find the roads because they have been eliminated by regrowth. 
I invite everyone to take a look at Admiralty Island, across from 
Juneau. That at one time was cut for timber and now is regrown to such 
an extent that it has been named a wilderness area. It is the only area 
in the country that is a wilderness area despite the fact that its 
timber was once cut.
  As we get the information I am seeking from the Forest Service and 
from other agencies, I want to demonstrate to the Senate that the only 
way to be able to harvest the timber we are entitled to harvest is to 
follow the process the Forest Service itself has selected; that is, 
that it build the forest roads. As it selects an area for timber 
harvest, it will build the roads, and the purchaser of the timber will 
agree to pay the cost of those roads as part of the cost of the 
contract to harvest the timber.
  As time has passed and many of our areas have been selected for 
harvest in the area set aside for timber production now--I remind the 
Senate that well over three-fourths of the Tongass has been set aside 
as national parks, wild and scenic rivers, forest wilderness, and is 
not available for any kind of timber harvest. In the areas where it was 
agreed timber harvests would be permitted, the Forest Service builds 
these roads and uses the funds we appropriate for that purpose, and 
those funds are repaid by the person who harvests the timber.
  As time has passed, the challenges from the environmental 
organizations of the country, the environmental costs, the 
environmental impact statements, and often-repeated environmental 
impact statements, have added up to the fact that some assert that this 
is not a profitable endeavor, for the Federal Government to allow 
timber to be harvested in the Tongass. But they forget--and that is why 
I am here--they forget there was an understanding and a commitment that 
a portion of this area would be available for timber harvest. That is 
one of the local products that is a renewable resource. The cutting 
cycle in our timber area is over 100 years. It means an area harvested 
this year will not be put up for sale for 100 years. Under the 
circumstances, to have a provision that says the roads that are to be 
built would be built by an individual in advance of getting a contract 
for timber harvesting means that great speculation would enter into 
this industry.
  It would also mean that the decision would be made by nonresidents of 
the area, speculators. Currently our logging industry is a local 
industry. They are small logging companies. They log small areas on the 
islands at a competitive bid to obtain the right to harvest that 
timber. This is not a case of wasting Federal money.
  Those who are approaching it from the point of view, saying the 
Federal Government should not spend this money, do not realize the best 
way to develop this timber industry was to have roads built by a 
Federal agency, designed by a Federal agency, and constructed for the 
safety not only of the people who are going to be working in the area 
but also for the protection of other resources such as the fish and 
wildlife resources of the area.
  The problem for a person who wants to harvest this area is 
overwhelming if they have to make the decision of where the road should 
go because there is so much inter-Federal-agency consultation going 
into the harvests, these roads for timber harvest, that it would be 
almost impossible for a private sector person to be able to get to the 
point where there would be approval for the location of the road. The 
design is determined by the Federal Government, the location is 
determined by the Federal Government, the safety features are 
determined by the Federal Government, and the purchaser of the timber 
has agreed to pay the costs.
  The way it is done right now is in the best way, in the interests of 
the environment, and the interest of the people of the area. Once the 
roads are built, it

[[Page 14292]]

is possible for the local people to be able to bid to harvest the 
timber and to make it available to the international community. By 
Federal law, we do not export this timber. It must be sold in the 
United States. This is from Federal land, and therefore is subject to 
the Federal law that prohibits the export of this timber.
  It is a forest product that would be worth a great deal more if it 
could be exported. But it is not. Some of the Native-owned timber is 
exported, but the timber from the Federal lands is not exported.
  The main reason I am here is to ask the Senate to think about this. 
This is a provision that applies only in the Tongass National Forest of 
Alaska. Why not the rest of the country? Why not the forests in New 
Hampshire? There is a forest in New Hampshire. What about the forests 
of other areas of the country? I am considering offering a second-
degree amendment--I understand second-degree amendments will be in 
order and are in order--to apply it to the whole country.
  Above all, what about the commitment made to Alaska when so much of 
Alaska was withdrawn? In 1980, the law that was passed we called the 
Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act which withdrew over 100 
million acres. That was a hard-fought battle that lasted 7 years in 
this Senate. We finally reached a conclusion that many of my 
constituents disagreed with, that in order to go forward with our 
economy and in order to go forward with our relationship with the 
Federal Government, we agreed to that act. It became law despite the 
fact that so many people disagreed with it because it did have some 
commitments to Alaska. This is one of the commitments, that the areas 
that were not set aside would be subject to harvest by the timber 
industry under the concepts that existed at the time.
  Now if we come along and change those concepts and say you cannot use 
Federal funds in the beginning, it means we will have to go back and 
fashion a basic Federal law that deals with the investment of private 
funds in those roads before the decision has been made--it is almost 
impossible for anyone to conceive building roads in an area before the 
final decision has been made that the timber can be harvested. The 
decision used to be made just by the Forest Service, but it is made by 
the courts now. Every single sale has gone to court repeatedly.
  Two years ago, I had an amendment to limit the amount of time that 
could be taken in those appeals. That is an issue that needs to be 
examined. But very clearly, the concept of using this approach that 
none of the funds available in this act may be used for the development 
of the these roads is another way to make the area wilderness. This is 
a wilderness bill. This is not an economic amendment. This is an 
amendment to assure that the commitment was made to us that a portion 
of the timber in the Tongass could be harvested. This will be reneging 
on that commitment.
  There is no way now for us to proceed with this type of road 
construction until we identify the purchaser of the timber, and there 
is no way really to get to the point of purchasing the timber until the 
roads are created. There are no roads available in the area except the 
ones to be constructed by the logging company that will cut the timber.
  I am sure the sponsors of this amendment do not realize what they are 
setting in motion. They are setting in motion a total block to 
development of the Tongass and a total reneging on the commitment that 
was made to our State that timber in this area would be subject to 
harvest.
  I hope to have an amendment that will make this apply to the whole 
country.
  I also have an amendment that I would want the Senate to consider, 
and that is that there should be a study made of the developing of 
these roads in the forest system, and that there be a report on a new 
process to develop roads in the units of the National Forest System if 
we are not to use Federal funds to build the roads.
  Again I say, from the point of view of safety, from the point of view 
of consistency as far as environmental protection, having the Forest 
Service build the roads in the areas that they agree to be available 
for timber harvesting is the best way we have devised so far. This 
concept, if it is to be studied, it ought to be studied throughout the 
whole National Forest Service System, not just my State, not just our 
State.
  I do think there is a great deal more to this debate that needs to be 
brought up to the Senate. But above all, people have asked: Why don't 
we just have a vote? The main reason is I think there are Senators here 
who really do not know the history of the development of this 
relationship between Alaska and the Federal Government with regard to 
the resources of our State.
  If you look at the 1980 act that withdrew over 100 million acres, you 
will find that because of those withdrawals you cannot build a north-
south road in Alaska. You cannot build an east-west road in Alaska. 
There is no way to get through the various passes and across the rivers 
where you should be able to do it because withdrawals were made for 
national parks, wild and scenic rivers. There are a whole category of 
withdrawals to prevent that kind of development.
  There actually was a Senator on the floor of the Senate at one time 
who said our whole State should be made a national park and we should 
not be allowed to develop any portion of it. Our State is one-fifth the 
size of the United States. It is as big as at least 20 of the 48 States 
of what we call the South 48.
  We are entitled to a lifestyle. We are entitled to be treated as a 
State. We fought long and hard to become a State. What we are seeing 
here is this inching away from being treated as a State. This amendment 
only applies to Alaska. Of all the units of the forest system in the 
United States, it would only apply to Alaska. I think that type of 
discrimination should be reason enough for any Senator to vote against 
this amendment.
  But above all, I do hope the Senate will take time with us. My 
colleague, Senator Murkowski, will be with me tomorrow, and we will 
discuss this amendment at length.
  Right now, I just have to express my deep disappointment in an 
amendment of this type. I cannot conceive of offering an amendment to 
discriminate against another State. We sought to become a member of 
this Union because we thought we would be equal to other States. We 
have witnessed, time and time again, this attitude of people from other 
parts of the country that we are not entitled to the same rights as 
other Americans in terms of our relationship to the Federal Government.
  I think this is an area that needs examination. And it needs 
understanding. I cannot recall since I have been here holding up an 
appropriations bill. This one I do think is going to be held up. I want 
the Senate to know that I have a whole series of amendments that will 
be offered to this amendment. I do not take lightly the attack on our 
State, a discriminatory attack on Alaska.
  There are few Senators who have been privileged to be part of a 
battle for statehood for their State who end up on the floor of the 
Senate. I think one of my duties as a Senator for Alaska is to see to 
it that we are not discriminated against. And this is a discriminatory 
amendment, one that really disturbs me, as I have indicated, greatly. I 
do hope those who come from States that have national forests will 
examine the practices in their States.
  One of the strange things about this is we have inquired from the 
Forest Service about the money they are spending for roads in each of 
the forests. The way they handle the money, it is not too easy to find 
out how much money is being spent in each of the forests.
  But clearly we know there are forest roads being built in the 
national forests in other States. I believe the Senate should 
understand the gravity of this kind of discrimination against my State.
  I am not offering these amendments yet because I want to confer with 
my colleague who went home this past weekend since there are no votes 
today. I will be here tomorrow to try

[[Page 14293]]

to explain further our amendments. But I do want to explain to my 
friends who are the managers of this bill, I hope they will not become 
overly disturbed with us. But we want to find some way to convince the 
Senate not to discriminate against our State. If there is some change 
that should be made to forest roads, it should apply to all forests. 
And if there is some concept of making a decision with regard to the 
economics of this aspect of this, let's decide what to do with the 
Forest Service altogether, not just the Forest Service that applies to 
Alaska.
  I close with what I started. Last year, I think we harvested less 
than 200 million board feet of timber, less than one-seventh of what 
was harvested the year I came to the Senate. Successive Congresses have 
found ways to whittle away, whittle away, whittle away at our ability 
to use the resources of our State. I think this is a time to ask the 
Senate to pause and consider that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 1038 And 1039

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk en bloc 
and ask unanimous consent for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes en bloc 
     amendments numbered 1038 and 1039.

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


                           amendment no. 1038

(Purpose: To provide additional funds for the payment in lieu of taxes 
                        program, with an offset)

       On page 171, line 13, strike ``$94,627,000'' and insert 
     ``$87,627,000''.
       On page 172, line 17, strike ``$235,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$242,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 1039

 (Purpose: To provide that certain user fees collected under the Land 
       and Water Conservation Act of 1965 be paid to the States)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. (a) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3) of section 
     6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-8), any user fees collected under that Act with 
     respect to recreational and related activities in a State 
     shall be paid to the State in which the fees were collected.
       (b) Amounts paid to a State under subsection (a) shall be 
     in addition to, and shall not reduce, the apportionment of 
     the collecting State under section 6(b) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(b)).

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to just spend a few quick minutes 
speaking about both of these amendments. The first amendment is an 
amendment relating to the payment in lieu of taxes.
  For those of us who come from the West, where so much of our land is 
owned by the Federal Government, payment in lieu of taxes is essential 
for our local governments to be able to function. In my great State of 
Colorado, most of the western half of the State is owned by the Federal 
Government. There are many counties in my State that rely on payment in 
lieu of taxes for up to 90, 95 percent of their budgets.
  The amendment I have sent forward that deals with payment in lieu of 
taxes is an amendment that would add an additional $7 million into the 
payment in lieu of taxes fund. That would bring the amount up to a 
level of consistency with what has come out of the House of 
Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, the second amendment deals with the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. My proposal, in this amendment, is that the user 
fees that are collected in, for example, ski areas in places such as 
Montana or Wyoming or Colorado--that those amounts of money be returned 
back to the Land and Water Conservation Fund in those States in 
addition to the amount of money they already receive under the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  It seems to me it would be an appropriate investment of these dollars 
to be invested through the programs of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  Again, we may be talking more about this in the days ahead, but the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund has had an exemplary record in the 
contributions it has made to preserve our water and our air and our 
land. I think this amendment will be helpful for us as we work on that 
agenda at a national level.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 1040

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by 
Senator Bond regarding the U.S. Geological Survey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1040.

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

(Purpose: To set aside funds for the University of Missouri-Columbia to 
           establish a wetland ecology center of excellence)

       On page 154, line 12, strike ``That'' and insert ``That 
     from the amount provided for the biological research 
     activity, $200,000 shall be made available to the University 
     of Missouri-Columbia to establish a wetland ecology center of 
     excellence: Provided further, That''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1041

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by 
Senator Craig of Idaho regarding mineral rights in the Payette National 
Forest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1041.

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

(Purpose: To withdraw from mineral entry or appropriation under mining 
   lease laws, and from leasing claims under mineral and geothermal 
       leasing laws, certain land in the Payette National Forest)

       At the appropriate place, add the following: ``Provided 
     further, That, subject to valid existing rights, all land and 
     interests in land acquired in the Thunder Mountain area of 
     the Payette National Forest (including patented claims and 
     land that are encumbered by unpatented claims or previously 
     appropriated funds under this section, or otherwise 
     relinquished by a private party) are withdrawn from mineral 
     entry or appropriation under Federal mining laws, and from 
     leasing claims under Federal mineral and geothermal leasing 
     laws.''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1042

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by 
Senator Warner of Virginia regarding the National Park Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1042.

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

[[Page 14294]]

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To set aside funds for the replacement of the main gate 
   facility at the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, 
                               Virginia)

       On page 149, line 7, after ``acquisitions,'', insert the 
     following: ``of which $4,285,000 shall be made available for 
     the replacement of the main gate facility at the Filene 
     Center, Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, 
     Virginia,''.


                           Amendment No. 1028

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1028 regarding the 
Great Smoky Mountains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Frist, for 
     himself, and Mr. Alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1028.

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

(Purpose: To reinstate a provision relating to National Parks with deed 
                             restrictions)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. (a) Section 813(a) of the Federal Lands 
     Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6812(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``and (i)'' and inserting ``and (i) (except for 
     paragraph (1)(C))''.
       (b) Section 4(i)(1)(C)(i) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(C)(i)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)'' and 
     all that follows through ``or section 107'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding section 107''; and
       (2) by striking ``account under subparagraph (A)'' and 
     inserting ``account under section 807(a) of the Federal Lands 
     Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6806(a))''.
       (c) Except as provided in this section, section 4(i)(1)(C) 
     of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(C)) shall be applied and administered as 
     if section 813(a) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 6812(a)) (and the amendments made by that 
     section) had not been enacted.
       (d) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     take effect on December 8, 2004.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1012

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1012 offered by 
Senator Ensign regarding the sale of certain lands in Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Ensign, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1012.

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

   (Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land 
Management land in the State of Nevada to the Las Vegas Motor Speedway)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. (a) In this section:
       (1) The term ``Federal land'' means the approximately 115 
     acres of Bureau of Land Management land identified on the map 
     as ``Lands identified for Las Vegas Speedway Parking Lot 
     Expansion''.
       (2) The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Las Vegas 
     Motor Speedway Improvement Act'', dated February 4, 2005, and 
     on file in the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (b)(1) If, not later than 30 days after the date of 
     completion of the appraisal required under paragraph (2), 
     Nevada Speedway, LLC, submits to the Secretary an offer to 
     acquire the Federal land for the appraised value, 
     notwithstanding the land use planning requirements of section 
     202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), the Secretary shall, not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the offer, convey to Nevada 
     Speedway, LLC, the Federal land, subject to valid existing 
     rights.
       (2)(A) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall complete an appraisal of the 
     Federal land.
       (B) The appraisal under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted 
     in accordance with--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (C) All costs associated with the appraisal required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be paid by Nevada Speedway, LLC.
       (c) Not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     Federal land is conveyed under subsection (b)(1), as a 
     condition of the conveyance, Nevada Speedway, LLC, shall pay 
     to the Secretary an amount equal to the appraised value of 
     the Federal land, as determined under subsection (b)(2).
       (d) As a condition of the conveyance, any costs of the 
     conveyance under subsection (b)(1) shall be paid by Nevada 
     Speedway, LLC.
       (e) If Nevada Speedway, LLC, or any subsequent owner of the 
     Federal land conveyed under subsection (b)(1), uses the 
     Federal land for purposes other than a parking lot for the 
     Nevada Speedway, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     land (and any improvements to the land) shall revert to the 
     United States at the discretion of the Secretary.
       (f) The Secretary shall deposit the proceeds from the 
     conveyance of Federal land under subsection (b)(1) in 
     accordance with section 4(e)(1) of the Southern Nevada Public 
     Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345).
       (g)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b)(1) and subject 
     to valid existing rights, the Federal land is withdrawn 
     from--
       (A) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (2) The withdrawal of the Federal land under paragraph (1) 
     shall be in effect for the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of--
       (A) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (B) the date of the completion of the conveyance of Federal 
     land under subsection (b)(1).

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1033

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1033 offered by 
Senator Ensign regarding structures at Lake Tahoe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Ensign, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1033.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the demolition of buildings 
           at the Zephyr Shoals property, Lake Tahoe, Nevada)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. None of the funds made available to the Forest 
     Service under this Act shall be expended or obligated for the 
     demolition of buildings at the Zephyr Shoals property, Lake 
     Tahoe, Nevada.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendments Nos. 1002, 1003, 1015, 1019, and 1020

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, to offer en bloc amendments Nos. 1002, 
1003, 1015, 1019, and 1020.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1002, 1003, 1015, 1019, 
     and 1020.

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


                           Amendment No. 1002

(Purpose: To reduce total appropriations in the bill by 1.7 percent for 
        the purpose of fully funding the Department of Defense)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     each amount provided by this Act is reduced by 1.7 percent.

[[Page 14295]]




                           Amendment No. 1003

   (Purpose: To require conference report inclusion of limitations, 
                       directives, and earmarks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained 
     in either the House or Senate report must also be included in 
     the conference report in order to be considered as having 
     been approved by both Houses of Congress.


                           Amendment No. 1015

  (Purpose: To transfer funding to Wildland Fire Management from the 
  National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
                              Humanities)

       On page 233, line 9, strike ``126,264,000'' and insert 
     ``121,264,000''.
       On page 234, line 5, strike ``127,605,000'' and insert 
     ``122,156,000''
       On page 130, line 24, strike ``766,564,000'' and insert 
     ``777,013,000''.


                           Amendment No. 1019

   (Purpose: To transfer funding to the Special Diabetes Program for 
 Indians and the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program within the Indian 
       Health Service from funding for federal land acquisition)

       On page 133, strike lines 16 through 22.
       On page 139, line 24, strike ``40,827,000'' and insert 
     ``8,827,000'' .
       On page 150, line 22, strike ``86,005,000'' and insert 
     ``54,005,000''.
       On page 207, strike lines 4 through 12.
       On page 216, strike ``2,732,323,000'' and insert 
     ``2,853,498,000'' .
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Provided further, That of the funds provided to the Indian 
     Health Service, no less than $210,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and 
     no less than $200,248,000 shall be made available for the 
     Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program.


                           Amendment No. 1020

   (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that any additional 
emergency supplemental appropriations should be offset with reductions 
                       in discretionary spending)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The on-budget deficit for fiscal year 2005 is estimated 
     to be $541 billion according to the Congressional Budget 
     Office.
       (2) Total publicly-held federal debt on which the American 
     taxpayer pays interest is expected to reach $6 trillion by 
     2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office.
       (3) The United States and its allies are currently engaged 
     in a global war on terrorism.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) The servicemen and women of the United States Armed 
     Forces deserve the full support of the Senate as they seek to 
     preserve the safety and security of the American people.
       (2) Activities relating to the defense of the United States 
     and the global war on terror should be fully funded.
       (3) Activities relating to the defense of the United States 
     and the global war on terror should not be underfunded in 
     order to support increased federal spending on non-defense 
     discretionary activities.
       (4) Any additional emergency supplemental appropriations 
     should be offset with reductions in discretionary spending.

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


                           Amendment No. 1043

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator 
Feingold, an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1043.

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

(Purpose: To require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an 
    audit of the competitive sourcing program of the Forest Service)

       On page 249, line 19, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``conducted in accordance with generally accepted 
     full cost accounting principles''.
       On page 250, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (e) Audit.--(1) In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``baseline organization'' means the 
     organization performing the work to be studied prior to 
     initiation of a competitive sourcing study under this 
     section.
       (B) The term ``new organization'' means the private 
     contractor, or the most efficient public agency, and 
     associated management and oversight functions used at the 
     conclusion of a competitive sourcing study under this 
     section.
       (2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct an audit of the competitive sourcing program of the 
     Forest Service.
       (3) The audit shall include--
       (A) an analysis of the costs and benefits of the 
     competitive sourcing initiative conducted by the Forest 
     Service;
       (B) an analysis of existing procedures to track (in 
     accordance with full cost accounting principles) all costs 
     required to calculate accurate savings or losses attributable 
     to a competitive sourcing study, and recommendations on how 
     the existing procedures can be improved, including all costs 
     attributable to developing, implementing, supporting, 
     managing, monitoring, and reporting on competitive sourcing 
     (including personnel, consultant, travel, and training costs 
     associated with program management), including--
       (i) costs incurred by the Forest Service before initiation 
     of the competitive sourcing study in performing the work to 
     be studied with the baseline organization;
       (ii) costs of performing the competitive sourcing study, 
     including--
       (I) travel and per diem costs;
       (II) training and communications costs;
       (III) contractor costs; and
       (IV) the cost to the Federal Government of Federal 
     employees working on any aspect of the study or performing 
     any work necessitated by the study;
       (iii) costs of implementing the competitive sourcing study 
     results, including costs described in clause (ii) and costs 
     associated with buyouts, transfers of station, and reductions 
     in force;
       (iv) ongoing operational costs of performing the work with 
     the new organization employed as a result of competitive 
     sourcing study, including any modifications to the contract 
     or letter of obligation necessitated by omissions in the 
     statement of work of the solicitation;
       (v) costs associated with oversight and maintenance of the 
     contract or letter of obligation;
       (vi) savings realized or costs borne by the Forest Service 
     that are not included under clause (iv), including savings or 
     costs due to--
       (I) changes in the timeliness or quality of the work 
     provided by the new organization;
       (II) changes in procedures of the Forest Service 
     necessitated by the new organization;
       (III) the assignment to employees or contractors outside of 
     the new organization of duties previously performed by the 
     baseline organization; and
       (IV) changes in the availability of personnel to perform 
     high priority fire suppression or other emergency response 
     work on a collateral basis; and
       (vii) costs of maintaining and operating a competitive 
     sourcing infrastructure, including office, salary, 
     contractor, and travel costs associated with the Forest 
     Service Competitive Sourcing Office and the cost to the 
     Federal Government of Federal employees for the time for 
     which the employees are managing the program;
       (C) recommendations on what accounting practices should be 
     adopted by the Forest Service to improve accountability;
       (D) an evaluation of the comparative efficiencies of the 
     Forest Service competitive sourcing and business process 
     reengineering procedures; and
       (E) an analysis of--
       (i) the A-76 study that resulted in the information 
     services organization and the continuing Federal Government 
     activity;
       (ii) the A-76 study of Region 5 fleet maintenance work that 
     resulted in the transfer of work to Serco; and
       (iii) the financial management improvement project, 
     accomplished by means of business process reengineering.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1044

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Byrd that I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1044.


[[Page 14296]]

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

    (Purpose: To set aside funds for the White Sulphur Springs Fish 
                               Hatchery)

       On page 139, line 5, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the total amounts 
     made available under this heading, $350,000 shall be made 
     available for the mussel program at the White Sulphur Springs 
     National Fish Hatchery''.


                           Amendment No. 1045

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator 
Conrad and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1045.

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

   (Purpose: To set aside funds for a brownfields assessment of the 
                          Fortuna Radar Site)

       On page 195, line 7, after ``costs'', insert the following: 
     ``, of which $200,000 shall be made available for a 
     brownfields assessment of the Fortuna Radar Site''.


                           Amendment No. 1046

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Sarbanes and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Sarbanes, for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Warner, and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 1046.

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

(Purpose: To provide for a study of the feasibility of designating the 
    Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a 
                        national historic trail)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(43)(A) The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 
     Historic Watertrail, a series of routes extending 
     approximately 3000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the 
     tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in the States of Virginia, 
     Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware and the District of 
     Columbia that traces Captain John Smith's voyages charting 
     the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay and the 
     tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
       ``(B) The study shall be conducted in consultation with 
     Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and 
     representatives of the private sector, including the entities 
     responsible for administering--
       ``(i) the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network 
     authorized under the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312); and
       ``(ii) the Chesapeake Bay Program authorized under section 
     117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1267).''.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Education

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the book of Isaiah, the prophet wrote, 
``[M]y people have gone into captivity, because they have no 
knowledge.''
  Francis Bacon wrote, ``Knowledge itself is power.''
  And when H.G. Wells summed up his history of the world, he concluded: 
``Human history becomes more and more a race between education and 
catastrophe.''
  In the next two decades, America's history will become more and more 
a race for economic leadership. For more than a century, America's 
economy has set the pace. We have led all competitors. Year after year, 
we have become used to winning the race.
  But now, over our shoulder, we can hear the footsteps of another 
runner. That competitor is China. And it is gaining fast.
  If we wish not to go into economic subservience, if we wish to 
maintain our economic power, if we wish to avert economic misfortune, 
the answer is education.
  America's economic leadership has been a remarkable achievement. We 
Americans are just 4.6 percent of the world's people. More than a fifth 
of the world's people live in China. There are nearly 4\1/2\ times as 
many Chinese as there are Americans.
  Yet America produces 60 percent more goods and services than China.
  That is how Americans can enjoy one of the world's foremost standards 
of living. The average American's share of our economic output is 
$37,610 a year. The average Chinese's share of theirs is $1,100 a year.
  But from a slow start, China has picked up the pace. Starting with 
Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s, China began to reform its economy. 
Deng was eminently practical, when it came to economic philosophy. He 
said: ``It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as 
it catches mice.'' Today, you can find those capitalist cats everywhere 
in China.
  Over the last two decades, China's economy has been growing at an 
average of 9.5 percent, nearly three times as fast as America's. And 
some project that within 20 years, China's could become the world's 
largest economy, ending more than a century of American leadership.
  You can see how they do it at an American or Japanese factory in 
Shanghai. You see rows and rows of hardworking workers, in colorful 
uniforms, at well-lit work stations. The company pays them about $2,000 
a year, plus food and housing benefits. But that is good money in a 
country with an average income of $1,100 a year. The workers there want 
to keep their jobs. And 200 million other workers stand ready to take 
their jobs if they do not.
  The challenge for America in the decades to come will be: How can 
America compete with that factory in Shanghai? How can we get paid 
$37,000 a year or more to make goods and perform services, when there 
are Chinese workers willing to work hard for $2,000 a year?
  The answer is not protectionism. We cannot build a wall around 
America. We cannot lift the drawbridge and flood a moat around our 
Country.
  If American companies do not employ those willing workers at the 
Shanghai factory, companies from Japan and Italy and China itself will. 
Then Japanese and Italian and Chinese companies will sell products more 
cheaply into America. And American consumers will gladly buy those 
products at lower prices. American consumers will insist on buying 
those products at lower prices.
  If America raises tariffs on goods made in China, then American 
consumers will pay more for their cost of living than will people in 
other countries. Americans will have less money to spend on other 
things that they want, less money to spend on other things in America. 
The American economy will be smaller, if America raises tariffs.
  If America raises tariffs, then American businesses will pay more for 
their industrial inputs than will businesses in other countries. 
American businesses will become less competitive, lose sales, and lose 
jobs. Once again, the American economy will be smaller, if America 
raises tariffs.
  No, the answer to how America can compete with that factory in 
Shanghai is not protectionism.
  The way that we can get paid $37,000 for our work--when Chinese 
workers are willing to work for $2,000--is for Americans to add more 
value. Americans earn more because we produce better. Americans produce 
smarter.

[[Page 14297]]

  And that means that for us to remain economic leaders of the world, 
Americans need to stay smarter. We need to educate our children and our 
workers so that American workers can add more value in an hour of work 
than workers in any other place in the world.
  Knowledge will be economic power.
  Ensuring that we continue to have more knowledge than the Chinese 
will not be easy. China has worked on its education system. Nine out of 
ten Chinese can read.
  It is very Chinese to take the long view. More than 2,600 years ago, 
the master Kuan Chung said:

       If you plan for a year, plant a seed. If for 10 years, 
     plant a tree. If for a hundred years, teach the people. When 
     you sow a seed once, you will reap a single harvest. When you 
     teach the people, you will reap a hundred harvests.

  We need to plant those seeds of education and tend those young 
saplings, in our public schools. In 1835, the Supreme Court Justice 
Joseph Story wrote:

       Every successive generation becomes a living memorial of 
     our public schools, and a living example of their excellence.

  Ensuring that our schools are a living example of excellence will 
take more than just money. But ensuring that our schools are a living 
example of excellence will take money, as well.
  We need to ensure that children can come to school ready to learn. We 
need to ensure that children have modern and well-equipped schools. We 
need to ensure that children have small classes. And most importantly, 
we need to ensure that children have good teachers.
  In the next decade, America will need to hire 2 million new teachers. 
One in five new teachers leave teaching within three years. In urban 
schools, half of teachers leave the profession within 5 years.
  Nearly two out of five low-income children are taught by teachers 
without a college degree in their primary instructional field. Low-
income students are taught by more teacher's aides than credentialed 
classroom teachers. Four out of five aides do not have a 4-year college 
degree.
  Columnist Tom Friedman wrote recently:

       We are heading into an age in which jobs are likely to be 
     invented and made obsolete faster and faster. The chances of 
     today's college kids working in the same jobs for the same 
     companies for their whole careers are about zero. In such an 
     age, the greatest survival skill you can have is the ability 
     to learn how to learn. The best way to learn how to learn is 
     to love to learn, and the best way to love to learn is to 
     have great teachers who inspire. And the best way to ensure 
     that we have teachers who inspire their students is if we 
     recognize and reward those who clearly have done so.

  We need to give good teachers the recognition that they deserve. 
Friedman told how every year, Williams College honors four high school 
teachers who made a difference. Every year, members of its senior class 
nominate their best high school teachers. A committee at Williams then 
goes through the nominations, does its own research, and chooses the 
four most inspiring teachers.
  Williams gives each of the teachers $2,000, plus a $1,000 donation to 
the teacher's high school. And Williams flies the winners and their 
families to the college to honor them at graduation.
  Williams's president, Morton Schapiro, told Friedman: ``We take these 
teachers, who are not well compensated and often underappreciated, and 
give them a great weekend.''
  Said Shapiro: ``Every time we do this, one of the teachers says to 
me, `This is one of the great weekends of my life.'''
  It's a great idea.
  Each of us can do our part. I have started a program that will 
recognize Montana teachers acknowledged for excellence. This is 
something that all Senators can do in their home States. A little 
recognition can go a long way.
  But if knowledge is power, then we must also devote the resources 
necessary to maintain that power.
  Columnist Matt Miller argues: ``The answer is to think bigger.'' He 
suggests that we make the best teachers millionaires by the time that 
they retire.
  Miller proposes a ``grand bargain'' where we raise salaries for 
teachers in poor schools by 50 percent. And in return, teachers would 
agree to change their pay scale so that we could raise the top 
performers and those in math and science another 50 percent.
  Miller, who used to work at the Office of Management and Budget, 
calculates that his plan would cost about $30 billion a year. That 
would provide a 7 percent increase in the nation's K-through-12 
spending.
  I ask my colleagues: Why don't we invest $30 billion for top 
teachers, and pay for it by closing abusive tax shelters?
  And we need to help students to learn math and science. Companies are 
moving jobs offshore to China, India, and Eastern Europe not only 
because workers there work for less, but also because they are well 
educated in math and science.
  Sadly, American high school students now perform below most of the 
world on international math and science tests. Most have little 
interest in pursuing scientific fields. Only 5.5 percent of the high 
school seniors who took the college entrance exam in 2002 planned to 
pursue an engineering degree. We have to do more to encourage students 
to love to learn math and science.
  And we need to help students to learn geography and languages. Visit 
a primary school in a middle-sized Chinese city. Bright, enthusiastic 
children will greet you in English. Chinese schools are preparing 
students to compete in a multinational, multilingual world economy. The 
coming generation of Chinese businesspeople will do business around the 
world. Americans need to broaden our linguistic and geographic 
abilities, or Chinese businesspeople will cut the deals before us. As 
our former Colleague Bill Bradley said in 1988, ``If we are going to 
lead the world, we have to know where it is.''
  And after school, almost 6 million latch-key children go without 
access to after-school learning opportunities. More than seven in ten 
mothers of children under 18 are in the workforce. America can no 
longer afford a school day based on 1950s family structures. Quality 
after-school programs can both keep children safe and improve academic 
achievement. We need to ensure that children have quality after-school 
programs.
  Similarly, we continue to have a school year that reflects the 
harvest schedule of an agrarian economy that America long ago left 
behind. Long summer vacations mean reading levels drop and other 
learning is lost.
  Schools like Des Moines's Downtown School point to another way. They 
have a six-week summer break. And that means less time to forget. 
Besides six weeks in the summer, students also have week-long breaks in 
October, February, and May.
  Jan Drees, the principal of the Downtown School, says: ``The research 
is becoming more and more clear that students retain more learning and 
need less review with shorter summer breaks.''
  The Downtown school is popular, too. More than 800 children are on a 
waiting list to get into the school.
  Iowa law requires schools to provide a minimum of 180 instructional 
days a year. But the Downtown School teaches students for 192 days a 
year. They are getting more learning in, every year. For Americans to 
stay smarter, students should spend more of the school year in school.
  China's increasing competitive strength is also fueled by its growing 
population of college graduates. Last year, nearly 3 million Chinese 
entered the workforce from 3- and 4-year colleges and graduate 
programs. This is one-third more than the year before, and double the 
year before that.
  America's college system is the finest in the world. And the work of 
the 21st century increasing demands good college education. But rising 
college costs increasingly bar Americans from getting the college 
education for which they are qualified.
  We must make college affordable for all. We need to ensure that young 
Americans are not discouraged from obtaining post-secondary education 
because of costs. Tuition costs have risen

[[Page 14298]]

considerably in recent years. And federal assistance programs have not 
kept pace.
  Pell Grants help to make college education affordable for 5 million 
students, a third of American undergraduates. But students receive 
grants averaging just $2,500 a year, while the average annual cost of 
tuition at a public college in-state averages more than $9,000 a year, 
and private college averages more than $23,000 a year. The most that a 
student can get in Pell Grants is $4,050 a year. Expanding Pell Grants 
would increase the ability of low-income young Americans to prepare for 
the 21st century.
  As well, we should improve, consolidate, and expand the government's 
education tax incentives to make them more effective. We could expand 
and extend the deduction for tuition expenses. We could expand the Hope 
and Lifetime Learning credits. We could craft targeted incentives for 
students pursuing science and engineering careers. We could do more to 
make it possible for non-traditional students to obtain an education. 
There are many good options.
  As with elementary school students, we need to help encourage college 
students to learn the subjects needed in the 21st century.
  In 1975, America ranked third in the world in the share of 24-year-
olds who held a science or engineering degree. By 2000, we had slipped 
to 15th. By 2004, we were 17th. And in the future, the Department of 
Labor projects that new jobs requiring science, engineering, and 
technical training will increase four times faster than the average 
national job growth rate.
  Last year, China produced 220,000 new engineers, while America 
educated just 60,000. And America trains only half as many engineers as 
Japan and Europe.
  In a recent report, McKinsey Global Institute found that there are 
already twice as many young university-trained professionals in low-
wage countries as in high-wage countries. China has twice as many young 
engineers as America.
  Engineers play a critical role in the development of new jobs and new 
industries. We should increase scholarships and loan forgiveness for 
engineering students to entice more people to love to learn 
engineering.
  At that Shanghai factory, American and Japanese research and 
development stand behind many of the products being built. But ask the 
American or Japanese company their plans, and they will tell you that 
they plan to move R&D work closer to the plant, there in China. And 
Shanghai's government hopes to lure more R&D to town. Chinese business 
understands that innovation is the source of American value-added. And 
they want part of that action, too.
  Clive Cookson reported in the Financial Times about a bioscience park 
outside Beijing. A firm there called CapitalBio is emerging as a world 
leader in the new technology of biochips. Biochips are cutting-edge 
devices that combine biotechnology and electronics for biological 
testing and medical diagnostics. The 4-year-old company is already 
selling instruments to American drug companies.
  Last month, CapitalBio entered into a partnership with Affymetrix in 
California, the world's largest biochip producer. CapitalBio's chief 
executive said: ``Affymetrix had never imagined that there was such a 
big research effort in biochips in China, working to such a high 
standard.''
  Dozens of similar examples exist. Already, several Asian countries 
boast of such science and technology centers. They are following in 
Japan's wake as world-class centers for research and development.
  Asia's R&D investment and scientific output have both surged rapidly. 
Between 1998 and 2003, China's research and development spending 
roughly tripled.
  You can judge a scientific paper's effect by how often other 
researchers cite it. The number of frequently-cited Chinese research 
papers has risen from just 21 in 1994 to 223 in 2003. And China's 
contribution to the world's scientific journals has increased from less 
than half a percent in 1981 to more than 5 percent in 2003.
  And Chinese researchers will do research for less cost. Newly-
graduated researchers in China generally earn about a quarter of what 
Americans do. For more senior staff, salaries are usually at least half 
American salaries. And in exceptional cases, they can sometimes exceed 
ours.
  Chinese scientists who have returned after studying and working in 
the west are playing an important role. In Beijing, CapitalBio's CEO 
said that he ``made a special effort at the beginning to attract 
[Chinese expatriates] from abroad, with salary and stock options. We 
offered at least to match the salaries that senior scientists were 
receiving; the highest we offered was $120,000 a year,'' he said.
  So far, Asia has been able to make a global mark only in a few new 
areas of the life sciences where western expertise is not entrenched. 
Stem cell technology is an example. South Korea, China, Singapore, and 
India are racing ahead on stem cell research. Those countries accept 
human embryo research in a way that the American government has not.
  But America still has an advantage in innovation. And America also 
benefits from a risk-taking entrepreneurial culture. You can see it in 
the venture capital that funds companies spun out of American research 
laboratories or universities. America's capital markets remain the envy 
of the world.
  We can help to maintain that edge in innovation by supporting 
research. American universities and research institutes do much of the 
most innovative research in the world.
  But over the last 20 years, Federal research funding in the physical 
sciences and engineering has declined by nearly a third as a share of 
the economy.
  We should reverse this trend and increase Federal spending on basic 
research. The money we spend will come back to us many times over in 
the creation of new jobs in new industries making products yet to be 
invented.
  We should support the National Science Foundation. The NSF funds 
research and education in science and engineering through a variety of 
successful programs. It accounts for a fifth of all Federal support to 
academic institutions for basic research, a crucial engine of 
innovation.
  NSF funds have helped discover new technologies that have led to 
multi-billion dollar industries and millions of new jobs. NSF-funded 
work in the basic sciences and engineering made possible fiber optics, 
radar, wireless communication, nanotechnology, plant genomics, magnetic 
resonance imaging, ultrasound, and the Internet.
  Each year, the NSF helps fund over 200,000 students, teachers, and 
researchers. Many of them take their NSF-supported work into industry. 
They found start-up companies selling new products and new 
technologies.
  In addition, we should make it easier--consistent with the 
requirements of national security--for foreign students to study in 
America. America has traditionally poached many of the best and 
brightest students from around the globe. Well over a third of American 
science and engineering doctorate holders were born abroad.
  Since 9/11, however, many students are having a difficult time 
getting visas to study in America. In 2004, foreign applications to 
American graduate schools declined by 28 percent. Enrollments of 
foreign students at all levels of college declined for the first time 
in 30 years.
  Foreign students are increasingly studying in Europe and elsewhere. 
That is a terrible loss. It will affect our economic health in the 
long-term. We need to do a better job balancing security and economic 
health.
  America must not compromise on its security needs in hosting foreign 
businesspeople or foreign students. But there must be ways to 
streamline visa procedures and otherwise lighten the burden. We need to 
make it easier for foreigners to study and conduct business in America.
  We should support community colleges, and strengthen the link between 
them and the workforce. That will allow schools to develop training 
programs relevant to jobs in the real world. That is a primary goal of 
the Enzi-Baucus Higher Education Access, Affordability and Opportunity 
Act.

[[Page 14299]]

  And when American jobs are lost to trade, we need to retrain people 
and help them to get back into the workforce. The philosopher and 
educator John Dewey said, ``Education is not preparation for life; 
education is life itself.'' We can no longer afford to think of 
education as something just for the young.
  We need to help displaced workers to receive the retraining that they 
need to succeed in a changing economy. Jobs will change. We should help 
workers to get the educational tools to change with those jobs.
  That is why I joined with Senators Wyden and Coleman to introduce 
legislation to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance to service workers 
who lose their jobs because of trade. TAA is a vital means of helping 
displaced workers get the education to change careers and stay 
productive.
  When Plato envisioned the ideal society in his work The Laws, he 
wrote of the importance of education, through the course of life. He 
wrote:

       [N]owhere should education be dishonored, as it is first 
     among the noblest things for the best men. If it ever goes 
     astray, and if it is possible to set it right, everyone ought 
     always to do so as much as he can, throughout the whole of 
     life.

  And so, through advancing education, America can compete with that 
factory in Shanghai. Through advancing education, America can respond 
to competition, without erecting harmful barriers to trade. And through 
advancing education, America can respond to a growing China, without 
forcing confrontation with China.
  University of California economist Brad DeLong wrote of the choice 
that we face in how we address the challenge of China. He wrote:

       A world 60 years from now in which Chinese schoolchildren 
     are taught that the U.S. did what it could to speed their 
     economic growth is a much safer world for my great-
     grandchildren than a world in which Chinese schoolchildren 
     are taught that the U.S. did all it could to keep China poor.

  Through advancing education, America can seek that safer world.
  But perhaps most importantly, America should seek to advance 
education not just to preserve our economy, but also to preserve our 
freedom.
  As Senator Daniel Webster said in a speech in 1837, ``On the 
diffusion of education among the people rest the preservation and 
perpetuation of our free institutions.''
  As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816, ``If a nation expects to be 
ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never 
was and never will be.''
  And as the Phrygian philosopher Epictetus said, ``Only the educated 
are free.''
  And so, let us advance education to preserve our economic power.
  Let us advance education to win the race for economic leadership.
  And most importantly, let us advance education to help preserve our 
American democracy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arkansas 
allowing me to either call up or offer three specific amendments.


                           Amendment No. 1048

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up, on behalf of Senator Smith, 
amendment No. 1048.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for Mr. Smith, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1048.

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

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress 
   on the rehabilitation of the Biscuit Five area of southern Oregon)

     SEC.----. BISCUIT FIRE RECOVERY PROJECT, REPORT.

       (a) Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report regarding 
     the rehabilitation of the Biscuit Fire area in southern 
     Oregon, including:
       (1) the change in reforestation capabilities and costs 
     between the date of the containment of the Biscuit Fire and 
     the completion of the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project, as 
     detailed in the Record of Decision;
       (2) the commercial value lost, as well as recovered, of 
     fire-killed timber within the Biscuit Fire area; and
       (3) all actions included in the Record of Decision for the 
     Biscuit Fire Recovery Project, but forgone because of delay 
     or funding shortfall.


                           Amendment No. 1049

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up, on my behalf, amendment No. 1049.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the last amendment will be 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1049.

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

 (Purpose: To provide certain earmarks for State and tribal assistance 
                              grant funds)

       On page 195, line 9, after the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``$500,000 shall be for debt retirement for the 
     State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund for the 
     wastewater treatment plant in Safford, Arizona; $3,000,000 
     shall be for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant 
     in Lake Havasu City, Arizona; $1,000,000 shall be for the 
     expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in Avondale, 
     Arizona;''.


                           Amendment No. 1050

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid 
aside, and I call up amendment No. 1050.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1050.

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

 (Purpose: To modify the formula for the allotment of grants to States 
for the establishment of State water pollution control revolving funds)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 604 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1384) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(1) Needs survey.--The term `needs survey' means a need 
     survey under section 516(2).
       ``(2) Needs survey percentage.--The term `needs survey 
     percentage', with respect to a State, means the percentage 
     applicable to the State under a formula for the allotment of 
     funds made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
     year to States in amounts determined by the Administrator, 
     based on the ratio that--
       ``(A) the needs of a State described in categories I 
     through VII of the most recent needs survey; bears to
       ``(B) the needs of all States described in categories I 
     through VII of the most recent needs survey.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means--
       ``(A) a State;
       ``(B) the District of Columbia; and
       ``(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(b) Allocations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be allocated by the 
     Administrator in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.--Of the total amount of funds 
     available for a fiscal year, the Administrator shall reserve, 
     before making allotments to States under paragraph (4), not 
     less than 1.5 percent of the funds to be allocated to Indian 
     tribes (within the meaning of section 518(c)).
       ``(3) Certain territories and freely associated states.--Of 
     the total amount of funds made available for a fiscal year, 
     0.25 percent shall be allocated to and among, as determined 
     by the Administrator--
       ``(A) Guam;
       ``(B) American Samoa;
       ``(C) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
       ``(D) the Federated States of Micronesia;
       ``(E) the Republic of the Marshall Islands;
       ``(F) the Republic of Palau; and
       ``(G) the United States Virgin Islands.
       ``(4) States.--
       ``(A) Target allocation.--Each State shall have a target 
     allocation for a fiscal year, which--
       ``(i) in the case of a State for which the needs survey 
     percentage is less than 1.0 percent, shall be 1.0 percent; 
     and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other State, shall be the most 
     recent needs survey percentage.
       ``(B) Unallocated balance.--Any unallocated balance of 
     available funds shall

[[Page 14300]]

     be allocated in equal parts to all States that, in the most 
     recent needs survey, report higher total needs both in 
     absolute dollar terms and as a percentage of total United 
     States needs.''.


                           Amendment No. 1051

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1051.

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

(Purpose: To encourage competition in assistance agreements awarded by 
                  the Environmental Protection Agency)

       On page 200, after line 2, add the following:

     SEC.   .

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     award assistance agreements to national organizations that 
     represent the interests of State, tribal, and local 
     governments unless the award is subject to open competition.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman, Senator 
Conrad Burns, and the ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior for their support of a 
project that is most important to me: the National Park Service's 
Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitors Center.
  Due to Senator Burns' and Senator Dorgan's ongoing efforts, the new 
Little Rock Central High Museum and Visitors Center is back on track to 
be built for the 50th anniversary of the 1957-1958 Little Rock 
desegregation crisis. I thank the subcommittee staff, Bruce Evans and 
Peter Kiefhaber, for their help as well in making this project a 
reality.
  This is important because in September of 2007, it is anticipated 
that we will have a very large 50th anniversary commemoration and 
celebration of the Little Rock Central High School desegregation 
crisis. Hopefully, one of the things that we will have there to 
showcase is a brand new visitors center that will allow people to learn 
about not only Little Rock Central High and the role it played in 
integration, but also learn about the civil rights movement in general.
  I remind my colleagues and others listening about the events that 
took place at Little Rock Central High almost 50 years ago.
  Little Rock Central High School was a place in 1957 where nine Black 
teenagers integrated the all-White Central High in Little Rock, testing 
the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ultimately 
ended legal segregation in our schools in this Nation.
  To its credit, the Little Rock School Board took Brown v. Board of 
Education seriously. When the Supreme Court said ``all deliberate 
speed,'' they took that literally. They looked at their calendars and 
thought: That decision came out in 1954. They probably thought they 
could not get it done in 1955, probably not in 1956, but in the fall of 
1957, they made the determination that they could have the high school 
in Little Rock ready to integrate.
  As these nine teenagers attempted to enter the doors of Central High 
School, they were confronted with an angry, rampaging mob. President 
Eisenhower was forced to order Federal troops to Little Rock to end the 
brutal intimidation campaign mounted against the Black children and to 
uphold the Brown decision.
  The Little Rock Nine--Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Gloria Ray 
Karlmark, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Terrence 
Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, Thelma Mothershed Wair, and Melba Pattillo 
Beals--changed the course of American history by claiming the right to 
receive an equal education.
  I must not let the moment pass without mentioning the amazing courage 
exhibited by Daisy Bates of Little Rock who was a civil rights leader 
and, by all accounts, was a key person in making equal education a 
reality in Arkansas and also in the Nation.
  Little Rock Central High School Museum and Visitors Center will 
provide America with an understanding of the events of 1957 and 1958, 
the broader civil rights movement, and how the bravery of the Little 
Rock Nine still influences life in the 21st century. It will teach our 
youth that nine young high school students proved that all men are 
created equal and that the rule of law is paramount in the democracy of 
the United States. It will remind the world that children all over 
America have the right to learn because of the courage and the 
sacrifice of the Little Rock Nine.
  We have been racing against time to secure the funds to build the 
center in time for the 50th anniversary of the crisis. On June 9 of 
this year, I had the privilege of having a conference call with eight 
of the nine. By the way, all nine are still living. I had the privilege 
of having a conference call with eight of the nine and reporting news 
that Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan had provided the crucial $5.1 
million for the Central High center in this year's bill.
  The joy expressed by the Little Rock Nine made me once again reflect 
on their acts of courage and heroism. Their gratitude made me reflect 
on their continuing self-sacrifice and the importance of our--the 
Senate's--support to share their story with our current generation and 
generations to follow.
  In the words of Minnijean Brown Trickey, the funds in this bill are 
``an affirmation of a very beautiful and tragic story.''
  Carlotta Walls LaNier said:

       With this museum, visitors will remember the events of 
     1957, but more importantly understand the difference 
     individuals can make in promoting equal rights and tolerance.

  On behalf of Little Rock Nine, the Arkansas delegation, and the 
Nation, I express my deepest gratitude for the support of Little Rock 
Central High School Museum and Visitors Center. I thank my colleagues 
for ensuring that these extraordinary achievements are recorded and 
shared for a better America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Arkansas is on the 
floor, I want to mention to him how pleased I was to play a very small 
role in getting funding for this and give him a little background of 
why I have had a special interest in this.
  One of the more inspirational things I ever attended was in the East 
Room at the White House, perhaps some 5 years ago, an event at which 
President Clinton had invited the Little Rock Nine. There they sat, 
these nine people, on a riser in the East Room of the White House as 
part of a celebration of the 45th anniversary of when those then-nine 
young children marched into the Little Rock school and integrated the 
Little Rock school.
  That integration was ordered by Judge Ronald Davies of North Dakota. 
He was a Federal judge who was from the Fargo Federal district in North 
Dakota who traveled to Little Rock, AR, and issued the landmark ruling 
that resulted in the integration of that school.
  I was privileged to name a courthouse, in legislation, after Judge 
Ronald Davies about 5 years ago because I wanted North Dakotans to long 
remember this man. He was a short fellow, 5 foot 2, perhaps. He 
strutted around with great flair, but was a remarkable Federal judge by 
all accounts and issued a courageous decision. He was, in fact, 
required to have security because of threats on his life when he issued 
the landmark civil rights decision that required the integration of 
that school.
  With respect to the story, I want to read a couple paragraphs from 
Prairie Public Television in North Dakota. They did an interview with 
the judge's family. It talked about when Judge Davis and Governor 
Faubus were deadlocked and the nine students were still

[[Page 14301]]

not in school. There was an injunction that had been ordered.

       On September 20th, Davies ruled that Faubus used the 
     National Guard to prevent integration, not to prevent 
     violence, and the governor was forced to withdraw the troops. 
     The situation was now in the hands of the Little Rock Police 
     Department.
       There was a mob of a thousand people outside Central High 
     School when those young students were ushered in. Everyone 
     will recall the Norman Rockwell portrait of a young Black 
     schoolgirl in pigtails and knee socks holding the hand of a 
     U.S. Marshal walking into the Little Rock public school.

  The crowd learned the students were inside, and out of fear for their 
safety, the police then evacuated them. President Eisenhower issued a 
special proclamation that evening, calling for opponents of integration 
to ``cease and desist.''

     . . . The next morning, Little Rock's mayor sent the 
     president a telegram asking him to send troops to maintain 
     order.

  President Eisenhower sent 10,000 Arkansas National Guard and 1,000 
members of the 101st Airborne. Those young students the next day, under 
heavy guard with substantial military around the city, entered Little 
Rock Central High School.
  I tell my colleague that only to say that Judge Ronald Davies, this 
Federal judge from North Dakota, played a very pivotal role in making 
that day happen with his ruling and paid quite a price for it at the 
time, with threats on his life and anger about what he had done.
  But 45 years after that Little Rock day, sitting in that room with 
now middle-aged African Americans, to understand the courage it must 
have taken not just for them, especially them, but their parents, that 
they forced this issue, not just on behalf of these students but on 
behalf of all in this country who were similarly situated and similarly 
mistreated. I could not feel more strongly and feel more inspired about 
what this center will mean to those nine, to both Senators from 
Arkansas, but also to the relatives of Judge Davies and so many others 
who had a role in making this event happen that has literally changed 
the lives of a good many Americans.
  I heard the Senator speak and wanted to acknowledge his appreciation 
and say that we are the ones really who appreciate the opportunity to 
do this.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1052

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, our country is now involved in two wars--not 
one, two wars; one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. Each day we 
read in the newspapers about the human toll this nation is paying. As 
of today, 1,730 troops, men and women, have been killed in Iraq; 194 
have been killed in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The toll of these wars 
is also borne by those men and women who carry the scars of battle.
  In Iraq, more than 13,000 troops have been wounded. In Afghanistan, 
476 troops have shed their blood in service to our country. The 
American people thank these servicemembers for their sacrifice. 
However, late last week, Congress learned that the Department of 
Veterans Affairs has been shortchanged in its mission to provide 
medical care to these warriors and all of the other men and women who 
have served in time of war before them.
  Now, this is a shame. This is a sham. If our Nation owes just one 
thing to all of those men and women who have risked their lives in 
answer to our country's call, it surely must be, in the words of 
Abraham Lincoln, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle.''
  It is a shock that the administration has only now revealed it has 
not budgeted the funds to fulfill this mission. I offer an amendment 
this afternoon on behalf of Senator Patty Murray, myself, and Senator 
Feinstein to provide $1.42 billion in emergency funds to address the 
shortfall in health care funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
Of this figure, $600 million would be used to reimburse VA construction 
accounts that have been raided to pay for health care costs. Another 
$400 million would be used to reimburse other accounts that have been 
raided for the same purpose.
  Finally, an additional $420 million is included to compensate each 
Veterans and Integrated Service Network, or VISN, for the additional 
expenses incurred because of the high caseload of wounded veterans. 
This $1.42 billion is urgently needed and the Senate must not delay in 
providing the funds that are required to allow our veterans to see 
their physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Earlier this year, the Senate rejected on a nearly party-line vote an 
amendment to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill to add funding 
to VA health care. The administration told Congress additional funds 
were not needed to care for our Nation's veterans. We now know this 
claim was wrong. According to the estimate provided to Congress by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA funding is short $1 billion this 
year. Congress must act to care for our veterans. When it comes to our 
veterans health care, half a loaf is not good enough.
  Some may argue against this amendment by urging the Senate to wait 
for the administration's plan. However, according to VA testimony 
before the House of Representatives last week, the administration 
intends to respond to the shortfall on the cheap by robbing Peter to 
pay Paul. We have already waited too long for the administration to 
recognize the needs of our veterans. The Murray-Byrd-Feinstein 
amendment is the Senate's opportunity to end this year's shortchanging 
of veterans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so 
that I may send to the desk this amendment offered by me on behalf of 
Mrs. Murray, for herself, myself, and Mrs. Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] for Mrs. Murray, 
     for herself, Mr. Byrd, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1052.

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

 (Purpose: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, for the Veterans Health Administration)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 429.(a) From any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     obligated or appropriated, there are appropriated to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs $1,420,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2005, for medical services provided 
     by the Veterans Health Administration, of which $420,000,000 
     shall be divided evenly between the Veterans Integrated 
     Service Networks.
       (b) The amount appropriated under subsection (a)--
       (1) is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress); and
       (2) shall remain available until expended.
       (c) This section shall take effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1053

(Purpose: To provide funds for the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the greatness of women and men is often best 
judged from an historical perspective. History gives us the detached 
perspective that allows us to better understand and appreciate the 
person, the cause, and the legacy.
  This happens because great individuals often have been leaders who 
challenged the status quo as they pushed the country into areas where 
it had feared to go. As a result, such leaders often arouse criticism 
and opposition.
  The Revered Dr. Martin Luther King certainly was a controversial 
figure in his own time.
  Black power advocates attacked him for moving too slowly, while more 
than one presidential administration attacked him for moving too 
swiftly.
  The NAACP criticized his take-to-the-streets tactics.
  Civil rights leaders broke with Dr. King because of his opposition to 
the Vietnam War.
  I certainly had my share of differences with Reverend King--a lot of

[[Page 14302]]

them. We were both products of our times, and both of us were doing 
what we believed was right.
  But time and the march of history afford a better understanding of 
Dr. King and his contributions toward making the United States a 
better, stronger, and greater Nation.
  It is for this reason, I am proposing that $10 million in funding be 
made available for the memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This $10 
million, which is available within the subcommittee's allocation, would 
supplement the approximately $42 million that has already been raised 
and stands as a solid foundation to help make this memorial a reality.
  I have come to appreciate how Martin Luther King, Jr., sought to help 
our Nation overcome racial barriers, bigotry, hatred, and injustice, 
and how he helped to inspire and guide a most important, most powerful, 
and most transforming social movement.
  Despite the hatred and the bigotry he encountered in his efforts, Dr. 
King never allowed his movement to be reduced to a simple racial 
conflict. He stressed on more than one occasion, that the struggle was 
not one between people of different colors. Rather, Dr. King believed 
that his fight was a fight ``between justice and injustice, between the 
forces of light and the forces of darkness.''
  His vision and his movement included all Americans. I remind my 
colleagues, and all Americans, that when Martin Luther King stood on 
the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and proclaimed that he had ``a 
dream,'' he pointed out that he also looked forward to the time ``when 
all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, 
Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands.''
  I remind my colleagues that Dr. King's efforts also focused on the 
economic rights of economically deprived people of all races and 
creeds, as well as on the civil rights of African Americans. In this 
quest, he proposed a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. He advocated 
a guaranteed national income. At the time of his death, Dr. King was 
organizing a ``Poor Peoples March'' on Washington, an effort meant to 
focus national attention on poverty among not only African-Americans, 
but among the poor whites of Appalachia, as well.
  Dr. King's vision was not only about what America could be, but what 
America should be.
  With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his dream was 
the American dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.
  Dr. King touched the conscience of a Nation, and forced us, as a 
country, to confront our contradictions. How could the United States 
present itself as the leader of the free world, he asked, while denying 
equality and equal opportunity to a large segment of our own people? In 
his book, ``Where Do We Go from Here,'' Dr. King asked why 40 million 
Americans were living in poverty in ``a nation overflowing with 
unbelievable affluence.'' Writing of the destructive effects of 
militarism, he asked: ``Why [has] our nation placed itself in the 
position of being God's military agent on earth?'' ``Why have we 
substituted the arrogant undertaking of policing the whole world for 
the high task of putting our own ``house in order?''
  With his works as well as his words, Dr. King left us a legacy that 
inspires and guides millions of Americans today. It is a legacy that 
demonstrates that human problems, no matter how big or complex, can be 
addressed--a legacy that proves that one determined person can help 
make a difference.
  Amid all his successes and triumphs, and all of his personal 
accomplishments, including receiving the Noble Peace Prize, Dr. King 
always kept his perspective. The night before he was assassinated, he 
explained: ``I just want to do God's will.'' What a powerful statement 
this was: ``I just wanted to do God's will.'' What an inspiration it 
should be to all of us: ``To do God's will.''
  Criticized, denounced, and opposed in his own time, Martin Luther 
King has become not only an American icon, but also an international 
symbol of social justice, and one of recent history's most beloved 
champions of freedom.
  Mr. President, we have named a National Holiday in his honor. It is 
just and proper that we now place a memorial on The Mall of the 
Nation's Capital as a visible and tangible symbol of the thanks of a 
grateful nation. Martin Luther King taught us tolerance. How we need 
such teachings today. May his life, his legacy, and someday soon, his 
memorial ever remind us of his vision.
  I am about to offer an amendment, and Senator Cochran, the 
illustrious chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, is 
the principal cosponsor of the amendment that I will offer, so it is 
bipartisan. I thank Senator Cochran, and I hope that many other 
Senators will join us in this effort to honor Dr. King.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment or 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. That I may offer this amendment on behalf of myself and 
Senator Cochran. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 1053:
       On page 189, after line 20, add the following:
       Sec. 128. (a) For necessary expenses for the Memorial to 
     Martin Luther King, Jr., there is hereby made available to 
     the Secretary of the Interior $10,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for activities authorized by 
     section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 
     Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 104-333).
       (b) Section 508( c) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
     Management Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 104-
     333) is amended by striking the second sentence.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amount reduced in Title I in the second proviso under the 
     heading Departmental Management, Salaries and Expenses, is 
     further reduced by $10,000,000.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the clerk, and I 
thank our distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Cochran.
  Now I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be added as a 
cosponsor on the veterans amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.


       Amendments Nos. 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, and 1058, en bloc

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me send the amendments to the desk. I 
have five amendments that I submit on behalf of Senator Bingaman. Let 
me ask first that the pending amendment be set aside by consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me by consent submit five amendments and ask that 
they be numbered separately and separately considered on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendments.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1054, 1055, 
     1056, 1057, and 1058.

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


                           amendment no. 1054

(Purpose: To set aside additional amounts for Youth Conservation Corps 
                               projects)

       On page 130, line 2, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,250,000''.
       On page 138, line 7, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.
       On page 146, line 19, strike ``$1,937,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.
       On page 211, line 25, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.


                           amendment no. 1055

(Purpose: To provide for the consideration of the effect of competitive 
            sourcing on wildland fire management activities)

       On page 250, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (e) In carrying out any competitive sourcing study 
     involving Forest Service employees, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall--

[[Page 14303]]

       (1) determine whether any of the employees concerned are 
     also qualified to participate in wildland fire management 
     activities; and
       (2) take into consideration and document the effect that 
     contracting with a private sector source would have on the 
     ability of the Forest Service to effectively and efficiently 
     fight and manage wildfires.


                           amendment no. 1056

 (Purpose: To strike the title providing for the disposition of Forest 
     Service land and the realignment of Forest Service facilities)

       Beginning on page 255, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 263, line 22.


                           amendment no. 1057

   (Purpose: To extend the Forest Service conveyances pilot program)

       Beginning on page 255, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 263, line 22, and insert the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 329 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (16 U.S.C. 580d 
     note; Public Law 107-63) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``40 sites'' and 
     inserting ``60 sites'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``13 sites'' and 
     inserting ``25 sites''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
     ``2009''.


                           amendment no. 1058

             (Purpose: To provide a substitute for title V)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record, under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1059

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: 
In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend 
paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 
2361 amendment No. 1059.
  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself 
and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1059.

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

     (Purpose: To facilitate family travel to Cuba in humanitarian 
                             circumstances)

     SEC.__. FAMILY TRAVEL TO CUBA IN HUMANITARIAN CIRCUMSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue a general 
     license for travel to, from, or within Cuba to any person 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (and any 
     member of the person's immediate family) for the purpose of 
     visiting a member of the person's immediate family for 
     humanitarian reasons.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Member of the person's immediate family.--The term 
     ``member of the person's immediate family'' means--
       (A) the person's spouse, child, grandchild, parent, 
     grandparent, great-grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, 
     nephew, niece, first cousin, mother-in-law, father-in-law, 
     son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or brother-in-
     law; or
       (B) the spouse, widow, or widower of any relative described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Humanitarian reasons.--The term ``humanitarian 
     reasons'' means--
       (A) to visit or care for a member of the person's immediate 
     family who is seriously ill, injured, or dying;
       (B) to make funeral or burial arrangements for a member of 
     the person's immediate family;
       (C) to attend religious services related to a funeral or a 
     burial of, a member of the person's immediate family.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1060

  Mr. DORGAN. I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Landrieu and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 1060.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Page 147, line 25 strike $72,500,000 and insert 
     $67,000,000.
       Page 148, line 1 after 2007, insert ``of which $3,500,000 
     is for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
       Page 172 line 4 strike $10,000,000 and insert $13,500,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 1061 and 1062, En Bloc

  Mr. DORGAN. I send to the desk two amendments I offer on behalf of 
Senator Obama and ask for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Obama, 
     proposes amendments numbered 1061 and 1062, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 1061

       At the appropriate place insert:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2682(c)(3) or to 
     delay the implementation of that section.


                           amendment no. 1062

       At the appropriate place insert:
       Provided, That of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``Environmental Programs and Management,'' not less 
     than $100,000 shall be made available to issue the proposed 
     rule required under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2682(c)(3) by November 
     1,2005, and promulgate the final rule required under 15 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2682(c)(3) by September 30, 2006.


         Amendments Nos. 1033, 1024, 1028, 1035, 1041, En Bloc

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have some amendments we can accept. I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by Mr. Ensign, 1033; 
Mrs. Feinstein, 1024; the majority leader, Mr. Frist, 1028; Mr. Wyden, 
1035; and Mr. Craig's amendment numbered 1041 be called up, and I ask 
unanimous consent they be agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. DORGAN. The amendments have been cleared on both sides. I support 
their approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1033

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the demolition of buildings 
           at the Zephyr Shoals property, Lake Tahoe, Nevada)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. None of the funds made available to the Forest 
     Service under this Act shall be expended or obligated for the 
     demolition of buildings at the Zephyr Shoals property, Lake 
     Tahoe, Nevada.


                           amendment no. 1024

(Purpose: To authorize the imposition of fees for overnight lodging at 
             certain properties at Fort Baker, California)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 114 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (16 U.S.C. 
     460bb-3; Public Law 108-7), is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, including 
     utility expenses of the National Park Service or lessees of 
     the National Park Service'' after ``Fort Baker properties''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting between the first and second sentences the 
     following: ``In furtherance of a lease entered into under the 
     first sentence, the Secretary of the Interior or a lessee may 
     impose fees on overnight lodgers at Fort Baker properties.''.


                           amendment no. 1028

(Purpose: To reinstate a provision relating to National Parks with deed 
                             restrictions)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___.(a) Section 813(a) of the Federal Lands 
     Recreation Enhancement Act (16

[[Page 14304]]

     U.S.C. 6812(a)) is amended by striking ``and (i)'' and 
     inserting ``and (i) (except for paragraph (1)(C))''.
       (b) Section 4(i)(1)(C)(i) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(C)(i)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)'' and 
     all that follows through ``or section 107'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding section 107''; and
       (2) by striking ``account under subparagraph (A)'' and 
     inserting ``account under section 807(a) of the Federal Lands 
     Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6806(a))''.
       (c) Except as provided in this section, section 4(i)(1)(C) 
     of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(C)) shall be applied and administered as 
     if section 813(a) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 6812(a)) (and the amendments made by that 
     section) had not been enacted.
       (d) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     take effect on December 8, 2004.


                           amendment no. 1035

    (Purpose: To extend the authority for watershed restoration and 
                        enhancement agreements)

       On page 254, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 4___. Section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1011 
     note; Public Law 105-277), is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year 1999'' and all that follows through ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015''.


                           amendment no. 1041

(Purpose: To withdraw from mineral entry or appropriation under mining 
   lease laws, and from leasing claims under mineral and geothermal 
       leasing laws, certain land in the Payette National Forest)

       At the appropriate place, add the following: ``Provided 
     further, That, subject to valid existing rights, all land and 
     interests in land acquired in the Thunder Mountain area of 
     the Payette National Forest (including patented claims and 
     land that are encumbered by unpatented claims or previously 
     appropriated funds under this section, or otherwise 
     relinquished by a private party) are withdrawn from mineral 
     entry or appropriation under Federal mining laws, and from 
     leasing claims under Federal mineral and geothermal leasing 
     laws.''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill fiscal year 2006, H.R. 2361, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $26.261 
billion in budget authority and $27.421 billion in outlays in fiscal 
year 2006 for the Department of Interior and related agencies. Of these 
totals, $54 million in budget authority and $60 million in outlays are 
for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 
2006 of $26.207 billion. This amount is $532 million more than the 
President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the 
Senate, $100 million more than the House-passed bill, and $553 million 
less than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
  Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the 
Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                 HR 2361, 2006 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS

               SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     Purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:............
    Budget authority.............       26,207           54       26,261
    Outlays......................       27,361           60       27,421
Senate 302(b) allocation:........
    Budget authority.............       26,207        [54]*       26,261
    Outlays......................       27,373        [60]*       27,433
2005 Enacted:....................
    Budget authority.............       26,760           54       26,814
    Outlays......................       26,788           55       26,843
President's request:.............
    Budget authority.............       26,675           54       25,729
    Outlays......................       27,414           60       27,474
House-passed bill:...............
    Budget authority.............       26,107           54       26,161
    Outlays......................       27,489           60       27,549
Senate-Reported Bill Compared to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:........
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................          -12            0          -12
2005 Enacted:....................
    Budget authority.............         -553            0         -553
    Outlays......................          573            5          578
President's request:.............
    Budget authority.............          532            0          532
    Outlays......................          -53            0          -53
House-passed bill:...............
    Budget authority.............          100            0          100
    Outlays......................         -128            0         -128
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Initial 302(b) allocation report for 2006 omitted subcommittee
  allocations for mandatory spending. These baseline spending levels for
  appropriated mandatory accounts reflect anticipated mandatory
  suballocations in next report.
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

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

                          ____________________