Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS. We do not know yet.

Mr. BURNS. It has been set aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by Senator Bond regarding the U.S. Geological Survey.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1012 offered by Senator Ensign regarding the sale of certain lands in Nevada.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1033 offered by Senator Ensign regarding structures at Lake Tahoe.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, we are now on the Interior appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, I call up amendment No. 1010, which relates to Indian gaming.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think that is about the only amendment that we have to be offered in today's business. We have kind of run our trap lines. Senator Dorgan?

Mr. BURNS. That is correct. We will huddle on that, on this amendment and others that will be coming to the floor later on.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, my good friend from North Dakota is running a little late. I will make my opening statement this morning, we will get his remarks, and then we will start moving. We are sort of conflicted this morning, as the Chair understands, but we will work our way through in accepting for consideration the amendments that will be offered to this appropriations bill. Today we begin consideration of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I appreciate the efforts of the two leaders to get this bill to the floor before the recess, in the hope that we can get a few appropriations bills to the President's desk before the August recess. The bill before the Senate combines funding for the traditional Interior bill agencies with funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies that were previously funded in the VA-HUD bill. Having these new agencies under our jurisdiction has been a real learning experience for me, and a real challenge in some areas. The EPA is an agency with a very broad reach. It administers, in cooperation with states and tribes, a long list of environmental statutes including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. As such, the agency has a tremendous impact on all sectors of the economy, on our public health and, of course, on the environment. I have been approached by many different members and outside groups about attaching legislative provisions that would address EPA rules and regulations of one sort or another. On a number of these issues, I am sympathetic. But with the exception of language relating to regulation of small engines, which I think we resolved in the full committee markup, this bill is very clean with regard to legislative provisions. I hope we can keep it that way. Otherwise the number of potential amendments would be limitless, and we jeopardize our chances of enacting this important bill in a timely manner. The bill reported by the committee recommends a grand total of $26.3 billion in new budget authority. It also matches the subcommittee's discretionary allocation of $26.207 billion. As always, any amendments that add funding for particular programs must be fully offset. The subcommittee's allocation represents a cut of $534 million below the fiscal year 2005 level for the agencies funded in this bill. That is a 2 percent cut. In an appropriations bill that is fairly personnel- intensive, a 2 percent cut is not insignificant. Simply keeping pace with pay costs and health benefits for park and forest rangers, Indian health care professionals, and other critical personnel requires a significant increase in funding over last year. Those increases, combined with the overall reduction in the size of the bill, mean that the grant programs and construction accounts in this bill are squeezed substantially. One area where this bill does not include a reduction is in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program helps finance wastewater treatments systems throughout the country and serves to protect both the health of the American public and the environment. The President's budget proposed cutting the Revolving Fund from $1.1 billion to $730 million. Given the tremendous need in this country for effective wastewater treatment, I could not recommend that cut to the Senate. This bill restores every penny of the proposed reduction. So if any of my colleagues are wondering what happened to a particular EPA earmark that they may have requested and trust me, I have heard from many of them, the basic answer is that it is in the Revolving Fund. EPA earmarks in this bill are greatly reduced from last year's levels. The same goes for many of the programmatic increases that were proposed in the EPA budget. This bill provides few of those increases. These are simply the tradeoffs we had to make. For the land management agencies funded in this bill, we have focused on maintaining their core operating budgets while restoring a portion of the proposed reductions to capital accounts. We have increased funding for park operations by $65 million over last year, and included $20 million over the budget request for basic park operations. I continue to hear from my colleagues and from folks back in Montana that they are concerned about park operating budgets. I am pleased that we have been able to sustain the large increase for park operations provided in last year's bill and have been able to build on that. Preserving such unique American treasures as Yellowstone and Glacier National Park will remain a priority as long as I am chairman of this subcommittee. In the Bureau of Land Management, increases have been provided for law enforcement, weed control and minerals management. While these jobs may not be as glamorous or well known as park rangers or smokejumpers, they are no less important. BLM has an enormous responsibility in terms of the sheer acreage it manages, and in meeting the multiple use mandate with which it is charged. In the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, this bill restores a portion of the proposed $166 million cut in the two agencies' construction accounts. But we are still left with significant reductions from last year's funding levels. As outlined in the budget request, language has been included in the bill to facilitate the consolidation and sale of Forest Service administrative sites. In the short term, revenues from these sales will help fill the hole in the construction and maintenance account. But by no means does this address the long term capital needs of the Forest Service. I am concerned about the reductions we are making in this account if funds are not restored in future years. This bill also supports programs that form the backbone of our trust relationship with American Indians and Alaska Natives. In both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, we have provided increases for the core operating accounts. The bill adds $48 million to the budget request for the operation of Indian Programs account, with increases for tribally controlled schools, welfare programs and Johnson-O'Malley education grants. Both Senator Dorgan and I have long believed that tribal community colleges are one of the most effective tools we have to educate our young people and further economic development in Indian country. That belief is reflected in the funding provided in this bill. This bill also provides the full $146 million increase proposed in the budget request for Indian health services, which is a healthy 5 percent over last year. That amount includes an allowance for medical inflation and population growth for the first time in my memory. There is little question that the total need for health care services is greater than the funds we can provide, but within the context of the overall budget this moves us in the right direction. For the BIA and IHS capital accounts, we have added $55 million to the amount proposed in the budget request. This leaves us below last year's levels, but will enable those agencies to make continued progress on the projects included in their facilities priority lists. I should also mention briefly the issue of Indian trust reform. This is an issue on which this subcommittee and the Department of the Interior have spent a great deal of time and money. I wholeheartedly share the belief that we owe it to Native Americans to responsibly and accurately manage the lands and funds that the Federal Government holds in trust for various tribes and individual Indians. There is little question this hasn't always been the case. But there certainly is a case--several, in fact--about the degree to which the trust has been mismanaged, and what amounts the government may owe as a result. The Indian Affairs Committee has been working hard on this issue, and I hope that they can find a reasonable way out of this intractable mess. It is pretty clear to me, however, that it makes no sense to spend many billions of dollars on a historical accounting like the court is trying to mandate. It defies logic to think that's what Congress intended in passing that American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. Instead, this bill provides roughly level funding for the Department to continue a reasonable level of accounting work, and uses the proposed accounting increase to instead shore up various BIA and IHS programs that actually benefit Indian people. That is where our priorities should be. About wildland fire management, some areas are experiencing a fire season, but we are getting a little moisture in Montana. We hope to avoid that this year. Another subject that has long troubled this subcommittee is funding for wildland firefighting. Obviously we have no way of knowing how much money will be required for firefighting in any given year, so we budget based on the 10-year average of suppression costs. In particularly bad fire years, that amount leaves us well short of the total need, and forces the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to raid other accounts until supplemental funding can be appropriated. On a small scale, that system works. But in very bad fire years the massive borrowing has been highly disruptive to other important programs. Two years ago I worked with the Budget Committee and others to provide a pot of supplemental funding that could only be used for extraordinary firefighting needs. That mechanism has been highly successful thus far, and I hope that we can continue to work with the Budget Committee as we go forward to ensure that we are managing the fire program in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. The bill before the Senate provides a total of $2.513 billion for wildland fire management activities, including $767 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $1.746 billion for the Forest Service. The total includes $492 million for hazardous fuels reduction, which is an increase of $28 million over the FY 2005 level. We have also provided funds to restore proposed cuts in Rural Fire Assistance and State Fire Assistance. State and local governments are a vital part of the effort whenever fire breaks out. In the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the bill provides $404 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, including Federal land acquisition, Forest Legacy, and the Stateside program. This is somewhat below last year's levels for the same group of programs, but is above the budget request and well above the House level of $214 million. The fund total includes $30 million for the Stateside program, which provides grants to states and local governments for recreation development and land acquisition. The budget and the House have proposed to terminate this program. A large number of my colleagues have expressed their concern about that proposal, so I'm pleased we've been able to keep the program going. Let me close by expressing my appreciation once again to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan. He and his staff have been a pleasure to work with, and have helped shape this bill so that it reflects the priorities of members on both sides of the aisle. I wish we could have done more in some instances, but in the context of a difficult budget I have no reservations about recommending this bill to my colleagues. For those of you who may have amendments, I urge you to get them to me and to Senator Dorgan--or our staffs--as quickly as possible so that we can complete work on this bill, and move on to other appropriations bills before the July 4 recess. Again, I thank my good friend from North Dakota. We share a common border, but we also give thanks that there is the little Missouri River. So I welcome him this morning and look forward to his remarks. Mr. President, I would add, I may go over to that listening session on Commerce. I would assume that Senator Dorgan is going to be around and you can consult with my staff and kind of manage things. Don't get too frisky and we will get this bill out of here by Tuesday noon. I thank my ranking member.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that we now have a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to George Matejko, a detailee on my personal staff, and Michele Gordon and Rachael Taylor of the Appropriations Committee staff during consideration of H.R. 2361, the fiscal year 2006 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John Bolton to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here yesterday, when another vote was taken in regard to Mr. Bolton's nomination. Had I been here, however, I would have voted in support of Mr. Bolton. Despite recent controversy over this nomination, I still believe that John Bolton is a fine candidate for the position of ambassador to the U.N. I have seen the complaints and the information provided as a result of those concerns, but I still believe that his credentials and background make him a qualified person for the job. His experience with an aside from the U.N. is one consisting of a great deal of reform. He has long been an advocate for U.N. reform throughout his career and has been vocal in proclaiming the need for the United States to take the lead in facilitating the U.N. in its goal of international peace and security. The U.N. is now facing allegations of corruption in the Oil for Food Program and from other senior officials. At this time more than any other, I firmly believe we must send someone who has experience reforming an organization. John Bolton comes to this nomination after years of experience in the international community. He has performed pro-bono work for the U.N. in Africa and worked as the U.N. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations from 1989 to 1992. In the last 4 years, Bolton has been instrumental in urging U.N. agencies to take steps to stop the spread of dangerous weapons, while calling on all member states to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the Moscow Treaty, which reduced our operationally deployed nuclear weapons arsenal by two-thirds, John Bolton served as the principal negotiator. As Under Secretary of State, John Bolton helped construct the G8 Global Partnership, a global initiative to focus on safeguards and verification of nuclear programs. The G8 Global Partnership establishes a principle that countries under investigation will not be allowed to serve on the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. In these times of atrocities against humanity, an honest, functioning U.N. is needed. I think John Bolton will help the U.N. head in that direction. I do hope to have an opportunity to work with John in that capacity and know he would serve tirelessly and thoughtfully in the many challenges ahead.