[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my
distinguished colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
for the efforts they have made over my 16 years in the Senate--efforts
that have significantly improved the quality of life of the people of
Minnesota.
Of all the issues that Senate appropriations considers each year, I
think those addressed in the Interior appropriations bill are among the
most important to Minnesotans.
It is this bill that provides the funds for protecting our natural
resources--our rivers and streams, our forests and prairies, our
endangered species and game animals. This bill funds the National Park
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, just to name a few.
During this, the last Interior appropriations bill of my Senate
career, I cannot help but recollect all the wonderful things that the
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations has helped me bring to
Minnesota.
Minnesota's nickname, the Land of 10,000 Lakes, does not come close
to depicting my State's natural resources. The name suggests only
water--of which we have plenty--but forests actually make up nearly
one-third of Minnesota's land area. In fact, Minnesota also boasts two
of the most beautiful national forests in the country--the Superior and
Chippewa National Forests.
The 13.6 million acres of commercial forest land generate over $4.4
billion for the State, making forest products the second largest
manufacturing industry in Minnesota. And yet, forests are also an
integral part of the State's outdoor recreation and tourism industry.
Approximately 1.2 million acres have been set aside for parks,
refuges, wilderness, and other recreational uses that are so much a
part of a Minnesotan's way of life. My State has developed a unique
balance between timber harvesting and the protection of wildlife and
their habitat. In fact, forest industry professionals--like Jack Rajala
of Deer River--are among the most environmentally conscious people I
know.
In 1992 and 1993, I was instrumental in providing Federal funding for
eagle nesting ground land acquisition within the Chippewa. As a result,
the Chippewa today is blessed with a revived and expanded bald eagle
community. In fact, the Chippewa National Forest is now the home of
more bald eagles than anywhere else in the 48 contiguous United States.
Within the Superior lies the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--
hundreds of acres of pristine wilderness that are home to hundreds of
species of wildlife. Over the past 14 years, I have secured both
recreational and interpretive funding for the BWCA Wilderness. I know
that people like Dick Flint, Chuck Dayton, and Kevin Proesholdt have
expended a lot of time and effort on fine-tuning the balance between
recreation and preservation within the BWCAW.
The BWCAW is home to the only thriving population of wolves in the
lower 48 States. Thus, it is no coincidence that the Wolf Center was
built in Ely, MN--in the heart of the Superior National Forest--so that
world renowned experts like Dave Mech of the Fish and Wildlife Service
can study wolves, and so all Americans can learn the beauty of this
much misunderstood creature.
On the western edge of Superior National Forest is one of the Crown
Jewels of the National Park Service: Voyageurs National Park. Voyageurs
is a relatively new park--established in 1971--and as a result, much
money has been needed to bring the park's treasured recreational
opportunities to the forefront. Superintendent Ben Clary has proven to
be very committed to the protection and expansion of Voyageurs, and I
am honored to have had the opportunity to work with him in an effort to
provide Minnesotans with a first-class park experience.
Over the years, the committee has provided over $43 million to
acquire almost 72,000 acres of land for Voyageurs. The Rainy Lake
visitor center was built using appropriations in the mid-1980's. Plus,
the committee allocated over $4.5 million for restoration of the Kettle
Falls Hotel, a historic inn within Voyageurs that still operates as a
place of rest for thousands of visitors to the park.
Minnesota is also home to several National Wildlife Refuges. The
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the largest urban wildlife
refuge in the United States. The creation of this refuge was begun by
my predecessor, former Vice President Mondale. I must also applaud
Elaine Mellot and Mike Bosanko, with Friends of the Minnesota Valley--
together, we were able to make this refuge a reality. Minnesota Valley
now has a new interpretive center, and over 7,800 acres of land have
been added to the refuge's protection.
Thus--in the heart of a major urban area--schoolchildren can see bald
eagles, endangered plant life, and can otherwise escape from the city.
It is a true refuge, for humans and animals alike.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a marvelous piece of legislation
which the Senate approved almost 10 years before my election. Over the
years, I have been strongly committed to ensuring that wild and scenic
rivers receive adequate funding to protect the scenic views and other
recreational opportunities associated with the river landscape.
Sections of both the Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers have since
been designated as wild and scenic.
As the State blessed with the headwaters of one of the world's
greatest waterways, it is imperative that we protect the Mississippi
River for future generations. In Minnesota, we do this in several ways.
First, there is the Mississippi Headwaters Board, which is a Federal-
State-local conservation organization. The Headwaters Board ensures
that the waters from the river's origin to the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis-St. Paul are preserved in their near-pristine quality.
Through the large urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the
Mississippi River is guarded by a new addition to the National Park
Service--the Mississippi River National Recreation Area. The idea for
MNRRA rose from the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, a
group of citizens who assisted in the development of long-range plans
and funding for park and open space facilities in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area. Shirley Hunt, who staffed our early efforts on this
has been, with Chair Peter Gaul, so instrumental in its success.
The next step was the Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee,
created by Congress in 1980, to bring together Federal, State,
regional, and local governments in an effort to enhance recreational
opportunities in various river corridors across the country. This
Appropriations Committee recognized the merit behind this sort of
cooperative effort--and provided funds totalling $214,000 for initial
studies.
In 1983, I introduced legislation to authorize Federal-State-local
matching grants for use in additional river conservation activities.
This was yet another effort to develop a cooperative system for
managing not only the Mississippi River, but other rivers throughout
the country. While this legislation was never approved by Congress, it
has been implemented on a smaller scale through MNRRA.
Finally, I sponsored title VII of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act
in 1988 which created the MNRRA. Encompassing 72 miles of the river
corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area, MNRRA was
established to preserve, protect, and enhance the significant resources
of the Mississippi for future generations. MNRRA fulfills the goals I
had in mind in the Metropolitan Rivers Corridors Study, by uniting all
levels of involvement--from the Federal Government to private
industry--in an effort to manage the many resources provided by the
Mississippi River.
The legislation also created the Mississippi River Coordinating
Commission, a 22-member body appointed to represent local and Federal
interests in preparing a management plan for the MNRRA. One of the most
significant aspects of the corridor is its importance to the economy of
the Twin Cities, of Minnesota, and of the entire Nation. Joanne Kyral,
superintendent of MNRRA, worked tirelessly to ensure that the final
plan addressed all river uses--agriculture, navigation, riverside
property rights, environmental protection, and recreation.
Thanks to the funding approved by my colleagues, the Park Service and
the Coordinating Commission recently were able to submit the final
proposed management plan to Governor Carlson for approval. The final
plan outlines a management framework that ensures a balanced protection
of the corridor's economic resources in addition to its natural,
cultural and recreational resources.
Downstream of the cities, the river is protected by the Upper
Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge runs from La
Crescent, MN, to St. Louis, MO. And, like the river itself, the
refuge's unique and spectacular resources have been enhanced through a
new visitor and interpretive center, as well as many acres of land
acquired over the past 16 years.
As the chairman and ranking member know so well, the river and the
refuge are threatened by nonpoint source pollution. Accordingly, the
committee has wisely provided much needed funding for new land
management protection activities on lands that border the river and the
refuge.
In 1992, the Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was added to the
National Refuge System, becoming Minnesota's ninth refuge. Located in
Morrison County, MN, this wetland/prairie complex is home to sand
prairie and oak savanna--a rare sight in Minnesota.
And this year, for the first time, both the House and the Senate have
granted funding for land acquisition in the Crane Meadows. I hope that
we will be able to provide Crane Meadows with the full $1 million, as
approved by the Senate.
Although the mighty Mississippi is the major attraction for outdoor
enthusiasts, the St. Croix River still stands out as one of the premier
canoe rivers in the country. In 1965, the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary
Area Commission was created to protect this river, as well as the
Mississippi. Now, the St. Croix's unparalleled beauty and tranquility
are preserved for all time through its designation as a Wild and Scenic
River. More and more people can now appreciate this hidden treasure due
to the recently completed visitors center. And--thanks to the foresight
of my colleagues on this committee--land acquisition for this 220-mile
protected corridor is now complete.
Of course, despite all of these often overlooked refuges, forests and
wilderness areas, Minnesota continues to be proud of its historical,
cultural, and environmental heritage embodied in the Grand Portage
National Monument, in Grand Portage, MN. It has been said, Mr.
President, that if a true and accurate history of the United States
were to be written, it should start at Grand Portage--a bustling
crossroads of Native American and European cultures in the 17th
century. Recognizing the monument's importance, in recent years the
committee has funded studies for a new visitors center. For this, I
have Curt Roy to thank. His dedication and commitment have ensured that
Grand Portage receives the recognition it deserves.
The administrative/interpretive center would provide orientation
facilities to help visitors understand the historical significance of
the Grand Portage. This center will be an integral part of the park
experience, and should continue to be a funding priority in the future.
Mr. President, Minnesota has been blessed with wonderful natural
resources and I have been lucky to serve as its Senator for 16 years.
However, I cannot help but think of how fortunate this Nation is to
have such dedicated people managing these resources. I know how hard
the park ranger works to educate visitors to Voyageurs National Park; I
know how hard it is for a forest ranger on the ``chip'' to protect the
forest in the face of budget cuts; I know how hard it is for these
resource professionals to balance the competing interests; and, Mr.
President, I know how hard it is for the members of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to handle the unenviable task of allocating
scarce dollars among innumerable worthy projects.
Thus, as I conclude this statement, I want to thank those who have
helped me over the years to effectively protect and enhance the natural
resources of Minnesota.
I thank both Mr. Byrd and Mr. Johnston, as current and former
chairmen of this important subcommittee, for their commitment to the
protection of Minnesota's wildlife and habitat.
I also thank Senator Hatfield, and our former colleague, Senator
McClure, for all the work they have done to ensure that Minnesota
received adequate funding to continue its proud heritage of protecting
its natural resource.
The next chapter in the history of Minnesota's environment will be
written by others--and I can tell you that I am immensely proud of the
small part I played in this proud history.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
statement on amendments
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week, the Senate debated and
ultimately gave its approval to the Agriculture Appropriations Act of
1995. The subject of that bill was one that is critically important to
many farmers and ranchers in my State of California. Unfortunately,
during this very important debate, the Senate was forced to spend hours
considering and voting on two amendments offered by the senior Senator
from North Carolina that were both irrelevant to the bill and, in my
view, unnecessarily provocative and inherently divisive. In my view,
there is no place in any Senate debate--indeed, in public discourse of
any kind--for propositions that appeal to fear and prejudice, as I
believe the Helms amendments did. I deeply regret that they were
offered, and that is why I voted against them.
the nea
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, coming down to the Senate floor to defend
the NEA has become a yearly ritual. This is the second time this year
that I have spoken about the importance of the NEA to my home State of
Vermont. The last time I spoke was almost a month ago, the day after
the bill was reported out of committee.
I talk about my concern over the 5-percent targeted cut to the NEA
budget in this bill. I talked about the important arts program in
Vermont that would be hurt if these targeted cuts go through.
Since that time I have heard from many more Vermonters who are very
concerned about what the targeted cuts in this bill will do to their
community arts program. Particularly detrimental to these programs
would be the 40.5-percent cut to the presenting and commissioning
program.
Vermont programs that have received this funding include the Flynn
Theater in Burlington, the Onion River Arts Council in Montpelier, the
Catamount Film and Arts Co. in St. Johnsbury, Pentangle in Woodstock,
and the Crossroads Arts Council in Rutland. Also important to Vermont
is the Challenge Grant Program which is being cut by 5 percent. The
Flynn Theater this year received a $250,000 challenge grant. Last year,
the Vermont Folklife Center in Middlebury received a $280,000 challenge
grant.
These programs do so much for their communities. The Catamount Film
and Arts Co. has earned a national reputation for excellence in arts
programming and community service. The $5,000 that they receive from
the NEA enables them to present over 25 live performing arts events
each year. The Flynn Theater supports ongoing programs with low-income
school children that help these children develop reading and language
skills through playwriting and performances. It also supports workshops
and study guides for teachers that intergrate arts into their
curriculum. These are just a few examples NEA funds at work in my
State.
Yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment that would, in my
opinion, have had extremely broad implications for the arts in this
country. I echo the words of my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd,
who so eloquently brought to light what a seemingly innocuous amendment
regarding restrictions would do to the kinds of arts that the NEA can
fund.
The amendment would have disallowed any NEA funds to support any
activity or work involving human mutilation or invasive bodily
procedures on human beings or the drawing or letting of blood. As
Senator Dodd pointed out, the most casual observer of art can recall
some of the great paintings in religious art over the centuries.
Representations of the stoning of Mary Magdalene, the decapitation of
John the Baptist, or the crucifixion of Christ could be interpreted to
fall under this amendment.
I understand what this amendment was trying to do. I do not argue
that some of the artist's work funded by the NEA have been personally
offensive to me and some of my fellow Vermonters. But I believe that
this amendment would have done irreparable harm to the NEA and the good
programs that it supports.
I strongly support the good work on the NEA and its chairman, Jane
Alexander. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I
assure you that when this bill reaches conference, I will work to fund
the NEA at the highest level possible.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Tongass
amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Tongass amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Would the good Senator be willing, in view what has been
demonstrated on this side and the other side--would the Senator have it
within the depths of his heart to withdraw his Tongass amendment?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to accommodate the managers of the bill.
However, what we are asking for, in view of the action already taken by
this body--they accepted an amendment by the Senator from Texas that
dealt with many of the same issues raised in this amendment. What we
are asking for is simply to say that it is the sense of the Senate that
the existing law surrounding the designation of areas withdrawn from
harvesting be followed. Knowing the Senator's friendship and long
association with the senior Senator from Alaska who has just presented
the case for what is happening in Alaska, the harm to our people in
these huge withdrawals is very significant. We are finding more goshawk
nests each day--and with every new nest the Forest Service draws a big
circle around it and withdraws further areas. You would think the
goshawk would be less in danger of extinction because more keep being
found. We are simply losing productive land through withdrawals that
are not authorized. There are no Federal mandates for these
withdrawals, and it is against the law. All we are asking is the sense
of the Senate that the Forest Service follow the law. I cannot
understand why anybody would not find that acceptable since these
species are not endangered.
Mr. BYRD. So this is the short and the long of it. I take it that the
Senator has indicated that he does not want to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is an
attempt being made now by the staffs to reach an agreement on the
amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Very well.
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. If the amendment is offered in its present form, I would
have to strenuously object to the amendment. I very much respect the
characterization of the amendment by my good friend from Alaska. I must
say that I have a different characterization of this sense of the
Senate resolution. If it is offered in its present form, I would have
to object and would argue that the Senate not agree to it. I understand
that the staffs are trying to work out an accommodation. I hope it is
worked out or that it is withdrawn. If an accommodation is not worked
out, I would have to object.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I encourage my colleague from Montana
to identify his objection. Maybe I can address it adequately to give
him some degree of comfort.
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator from West Virginia will yield.
Mr. President, essentially, this is a sense-of-the-Senate which
directs the Forest Service to disregard evidence that has become
available since the forest plan was adopted in 1993, evidence that two
species are in fact so threatened that they could very well be
endangered. That is a very different proposition than the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that was adopted, which was earlier offered by the
Senator from Texas.
In that case, in the sense of the Senate offered by the Senator from
Texas, I read the language.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary shall take
whatever steps are necessary and allowable under law to
minimize adverse impacts while conserving threatened
endangered species.
And so forth.
If we adopt, on the other hand, the sense of the Senate offered by
the Senator from Alaska, we would be directing the Forest Service to
not follow the law; that is, by going ahead with the forest plans even
though there is now very solid evidence that to do so would violate the
Endangered Species Act, would violate the National Environmental Policy
Act, and violate other acts, too.
Frankly, I think if the sense of the Senate were adopted it would
greatly increase the probability of lawsuits because of the complexity.
It pits timber workers against salmon commercial fishermen, and it just
would be improper for the Forest Service to disregard new evidence that
if the Forest Service had this present evidence in drawing up the plan
it would not draw the plan in the way it has. So, basically, it is for
those reasons.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my colleague uses the terminology
``evidence.'' Evidence, as we both know, by a dictionary definition has
certain implications.
Considering the fact that there is no listing of either of these
species by the appropriate agencies, it would certainly seem to be a
premature action by the Forest Service to withdraw these land areas.
We are both from the West. I do not pretend to know an awful lot
about the game species in Montana. But in Alaska we clearly allow the
taking of wolf throughout the State of Alaska under certain
restrictions by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
This is a fact. And it is based on good biology. If there were a
shortage of wolf, obviously the State Department of Fish and Game, with
advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would encourage the
Forest Service's actions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not
taken any action or recommendations in this matter because they, too,
agree that these species are not designated endangered. There is no
reason to think they are.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize the objective behind what the
senior Senator has said and what I am absolutely convinced of. There
is a tremendous movement to simply stop timber harvesting on the
national forest to the detriment of people's lifestyles and jobs. That
is the bottom issue here.
These two species, based on the information we have, do not support
listing. And it is premature to suggest that there should be any
restriction on timber harvest as a consequence of wolf or goshawk.
We allow wolf hunting. The wolves are simply not on the larger
islands because they do not swim from the small islands to the larger
islands. As a matter of fact there are more wolves where there is
timber harvest.
So as my good friend from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works--and I know how that committee looks at resource development,
particularly renewable resource development--should consider the fact
that these are not endangered species, nor is the Forest Service
complying with the law in these withdrawals. As a consequence I fail to
understand the basis for his argument.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another
question.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we can have a long involved debate on this
issue. I will be very short about it.
I held a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee just
Saturday. We had a hearing on the Endangered Species Act. It was a long
and involved hearing. It was 8 hours, with 27 or 28 witnesses, open
mike, and probably anybody under the Sun asked a question and made a
statement. It was very long and involved.
It was revolving around reauthorization of the Endangered Species
Act, which I introduced and I hope this Congress will pass, and I think
will pass not this year but next year. One of the central tenets of it
is to prevent listing in the first place.
One way to prevent listing in the first place is to spend a little
more time and attention on candidate species or threatened species so
there is no listing, so we do not then have the problems that occur
when a species is listed.
I hope that both Senators from Alaska and all Senators in this body
will take a long, hard look at that proposed reauthorization, because I
think it does go a long, long way.
Let me just cut to the quick here. I ask the Senator. Perhaps he will
get a chance to look at the proposed modification that his staff and my
staff worked out. If he were to offer that modification, I would have
no opposition, no qualms whatsoever, with the amendment and urge him to
so modify it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAUCUS. I am glad to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana, which has
timber harvest in this area, what he would do if one of his
constituents came to him and said: We had a valid contract to cut
timber or the Forest Service had scheduled a sale, were notified that
it could not be used until the Forest Service drew a 3- to 10-mile
circle around every goshawk tree, when the goshawk was not endangered,
was not threatened, was not listed in any way in an environment impact
statement that had been prepared. What would the Senator say to his
constituent who said, ``What can I do with this administrative agency?
They tell me to forget it. We do not have any way to deal with them.''
They then have the rings, the circles. You cannot go inside that ring.
What does the Senator do?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my first answer to the Senator from Alaska
is I have now learned more about the situation, so I know more about
it.
I tell the Senator this: In my State of Montana I asked timber
workers, miners, sawmill workers, do they want the grizzly bear to
become extinct? No. They want to preserve the grizzly bear. I asked if
they want the salmon to become extinct? No, they do not. They want to
find a way to save salmon from extinction. Do they want the wolf to
become extinct? No. They want to find a way to save the wolf.
What we are trying with the reauthorization of the Endangered Species
Act, to come up with a much better process where people buy in more
quickly, communities are consulted much more, States are consulted much
more, so that States themselves have a much, much larger role in first
deciding whether a species shall be listed.
By the way, we are proposing independent peer review so that the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the agencies themselves do not make these
decisions only. It is peer review.
Second, by involving the States, for example, the State of Alaska,
Alaska has a lot more to say in developing recovery plans and what
habitat should be protected, and what not.
I cannot speak to the issue that the Senator just raised. I do not
know enough about it. I know my State.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one more time?
Mr. BAUCUS. I am going to do that when the Endangered Species Act
comes up.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one more time?
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will not make a long statement.
I ask the Senator this. Why does the Senator take his time having
hearings, trying to suggest laws, trying to get his colleagues to
understand those laws, and get the Congress and then the President to
go through the process of making laws if the agency says it does not
need a law? It can make up its own independent mind. It has control
over the forests in my State. It can make up its own mind. And it has
closed off access to an area around the tree which has a bird nest that
it admits is not endangered, admits it is not threatened. But it just
has that power.
Why does the Senator bother coming to the Senate? Why do we bother
being Members of the legislature if through the audacity of
administrators they can just say ``We have the basic authority''?
Did the Senator give anyone in the administrative branch, in the
executive branch of the United States, the authority to enact a
regulation which closes part of the lands of the United States without
complying with some law, a forest planning law, of the United States?
That is what we are talking about here today. We reached the point of
boiling in regard to the laws that come out of the Senator's committee
already, but we do not need them anymore.
The Forest Service says it does not need the law. Why do we worry
about passing laws if we have an executive branch that just makes laws,
and it did not publish them? The current law says you must publish
intention to have a regulation. You must put it in the Federal
Register. If I have the people of the Senate conduct the hearing, and
the ANILCA law, which I read to the Senate this afternoon, says no land
in excess of 5,000 acres from the State of Alaska shall be withdrawn
without complying with specific conditions. They say that did not apply
to them.
Why does the Senator bother passing laws? Why are we here? That is
what we are saying. We just want a simple sense-of-the-Senate saying
for God's sake follow the law.
I was going to offer an amendment to tell them once more this is the
law, and put it in the law.
My colleague at least has a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am
hopeful the Senate is sensible enough to tell the executive branch to
follow the law.
Does the Senator from Montana object to that?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska makes a fairly
strong point, and I must say a very good point, with respect to the
problem we now have with the Endangered Species Act. That problem now
is that there are not sufficient criteria. There are not sufficient
guidelines. There are not sufficient standards in the Endangered
Species Act today. As a consequence, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
sometimes other Federal agencies, make decisions which are a bit
arbitrary, which in many cases are not as soundly based on science as
they should be, decisions which are based more on bureaucratic edict
and fiat; decisions which do not include States; decisions which do not
include local communities; decisions which do not include the views of
the property owners, because, after all, the Endangered Species Act
can, and in many cases does, have an effect on property rights.
It is the central point that the Senator makes, the reason why I have
suggested we reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, which I think will
dramatically improve the act and which, as a consequence, there will be
much more confidence in the operation of the act, both in the
environmental community and from the development community.
I do not want to give any long argument here. Other Senators have
other business they want to conduct.
But the Senator from Alaska says he does not see anything wrong with
following the law. I must say that is part of the problem here. There
is the National Environment Policy Act. There is the Endangered Species
Act. There are other laws, albeit environmental laws, which this sense
of the Senate says should not be adhered to, should not be paid
attention to.
And, basically, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution says the Tongass
plan in 1993 is it, period; irrespective of the other environmental
statutes which also have to be followed.
And I say, therefore, we should follow the law. Unfortunately, there
is a little confusion as to which laws we are talking about.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me pick up on one point made by the
Senator from Montana that suggests we are asking for something that
would obfuscate, if you will, vitiate the existing law that we live
under and that is ANILCA.
As Senator Stevens indicated, these species have not been endangered.
There is no identification of endangering. The Forest Service simply
made the withdrawal.
The inconsistency is, the more we find of the species, the larger the
withdrawals, which clearly does not make sense, because they are
becoming less threatened the more you find. But nobody has found that
they are even threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not
indicated that they are threatened.
You know, I could not help but notice the sensitivity to something I
feel very sensitive about, and that is the issue of dividing Alaskans.
Mr. President, the Senator from Montana mentioned the loggers and the
fishermen. I would advise the Senator from Montana that we know
something about fish. That is why everybody wants our fish. We had
record runs the last 7 of the last 11 years--193 million fish last
year, in spite of the Prince William Sound disaster.
If the rest of the country would follow some of the applications of
renewable resource management like we have in the State of Alaska, you
would not have the endangered species on the Snake River. What are you
doing about that? Virtually nothing, because you want to have it both
ways. You want to have cheap power, you want to have an agricultural
industry, and you want to have fish. But you have hydroelectric dams
that are taking care of your fish.
We are increasing our fishery resources through good biology. Our
anadromous fish are recurring more and more every year.
But what you want to do is use arguments on fisheries to suggest that
we cannot manage our renewable timber resources, and it just simply
does not fly. There is no evidence to suggest that any endangered
species exists currently in southeastern Alaska.
If you want to get into a debate here, it would be very interesting
to go back to the spotted owl, which they now acknowledge exists in
abundance in northern California and you can raise them in captivity
and they will simply go to whatever growth timber is available. That
was a hoax that was pulled by this administration on the American
people and the people of the Pacific Northwest at the detriment of
about 60,000 jobs, I hope they do not forget it.
Mr. President, if there is no further discussion, I am pleased to say
that staffs have reached----
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a little further discussion.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Excuse me.
I was going to send a modification to the desk.
Mr. BYRD. Go ahead.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not want to interrupt that. I do have one comment
to make.
Mr. BYRD. Then when the senior Senator gets the floor, if he would
yield to me briefly.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modified amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2409), as modified, reads as follows:
On page 89, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS FROM TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN
ALASKA.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The United States Forest Service has begun to implement
prescriptive wildlife management measures in the Tongass
National Forest that reduce land areas available for multiple
use under the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), thereby
reducing timber harvest volumes in already prepared harvest
units;
(2) The prescriptive measures termed ``habitat conservation
areas'' and ``goshawk protective perimeters'' are being used
to withdraw lands from timber management which have been
evaluated and approved for timber harvest pursuant to the
TLMP, National Environmental Policy Act, the Tongass Timber
Reform Act, and the National Forest Management Act;
(3) Prescriptive management measures intended to protect
wildlife population viability should be accomplished through
amendments or revisions to the TLMP adopted in accordance
with the process described in the National Forest Management
Act at 16 U.S.C. 1604(d) and (g);
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) funds made available under this act should not be used
to implement management actions (including, but not limited
to, prescriptions such as habitat conservation areas and
goshawk protective perimeters) which withdraw lands from
timber management or planned timber harvest in the Tongass
National Forest, unless such management actions are imposed
pursuant to the public participation provisions of Section
6(d) and other sections of the National Forest Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1604(d)).
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe that the amendment has been accepted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. The amendment has been modified.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Has been modified; and I believe it has been accepted.
Mr. BYRD. No, it has not been accepted.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator from Alaska yield to me
briefly?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I yield to my friend.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with the concurrence of Mr. Nickles, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendments listed under the names of
Senators Burns, Brown, and Danforth be stricken from the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I told my good friend from Montana that I
would not ask him to yield again, but I do want to make a statement
about the policies that he was commenting on.
I was one of the original cosponsors of the National Environmental
Policy Act, along with the distinguished Senator from Washington,
Senator Jackson. That act specifically says, if there is a significant
official act, its environmental consequences must be examined first.
That, I would assume, would cover an action taken by a member of the
executive branch in dereliction of two specific statutes of the United
States, an act which is not specifically authorized by any other law,
including the environmental laws the Senator from Montana has
mentioned, the Endangered Species Act or NEPA. No NEPA study was made
of the announcement of the goshawk circles or the wolf habitat zone.
They were arbitrary executive actions without any NEPA review at all.
Even PacFish got a NEPA review.
We support NEPA review. As a matter of fact, our law specifically
requires NEPA review before a contact can be let to cut timber in
Alaska. That applies in the rest of the United States and under the
Tongass Land Management plan. That plan was not complied with, the
ANILCA law was not complied with, the Tongass Timber Reform Act was not
complied with. And yet we have spokesmen coming in for the extreme
environmental organizations saying, ``Look what those Alaskans are
trying to do again.''
All we are trying to do is say, ``Live up to the law.''
I do not understand the position of the Senator from Montana that
somehow or other the actions taken by these administrative officials
were taken in compliance with the law.
And again, I would not ask him, but I would assert to him that he has
no law he can cite that would authorize a member of the Forest Service
to issue an edict closing lands in my State to harvest timber under
valid contract and scheduled timber sales unless it is done in
compliance with the law. I do not know of any law that authorizes that.
I know of two specific laws that prohibit it. And NEPA does not
authorize this until NEPA has been complied with.
Now I believe it is time for us, particularly those of us from the
West, to listen, to listen to what is going on. This administration has
within it groups of people who want to stop development on public
lands. This is a prime example of what is going on in the West today.
Those actions were announced in the Tongass forest, just announced.
They were not published, as required by law. They were not studied, as
required by law. The other side of the debate was never aired to the
public. They were not submitted to Congress, as required by law. And no
NEPA action was taken before those actions were announced.
Now, I say to the Senate and the Congress as a whole, particularly
those of us from the West, you better wake up, because you are going to
be coming in with these problems too. Those policies, if they are
pursued in Alaska and succeed, they will be followed in the national
forests of the rest of the United States.
I believe we are here to pass laws that will be observed by the
executive branch. As a matter of fact, if we were in the majority and I
was the chairman of a committee, those people would be before this
committee and be under oath and be asked to explain why they were
taking actions that were not permitted by law in any State of the
Union.
Until we find some way in the Senate to enforce these laws, to tell
people they must abide by them--they do not believe in them; by
definition they do not believe in them--but they are the laws. If they
want to change the practices of the Forest Service, they should comply
with the law.
I will tell this to the Senator from Montana, Mr. President: The
National Environmental Policy Act will not be amended, but the
Endangered Species Act will be amended to assure that this will not
happen, or it will not pass while I am here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to accept the
modification by the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I urge the
Senate to agree to this amendment.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am prepared to recommend the adoption of
the amendment by Mr. Murkowski, as modified.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Montana,
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for
addressing the Tongass National Forest issue. In the past 5 years, this
forest has received more congressional attention than any other forest
in the National Forest System.
It is important to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act,
the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act are
applied fairly to all public lands. The modified sense of the Senate
amendment reemphasizes the public participation components of these
laws and guarantees that these important statutes still guide public
land management.
The Senator from Montana is a true leader on environmental issues.
The Senate, the people of Montana, and the country are lucky to have
such a vigilant public servant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2409), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 2411
(Purpose: To require the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to
submit a report to Congress concerning the Shiprock Campus of Navajo
Community College)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and
Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2411.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3 . (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report on measures necessary
to address problems concerning the physical structure of
Navajo Community College in Shiprock, New Mexico consistent
with the responsibilities for the facility.
Nothing in this amendment is intended to require a change
in priority for funding projects by the Department.
(b) Content of Report.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include a detailed list of the resources
that are required to alleviate the health and safety hazards
that have resulted from the poor condition of the structure
described in such subsection.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I learned that the
Bureau of Indian Affairs Safety Management Office had just issued a
building maintenance report recommending the immediate closure of the
Navajo Community College Shiprock campus building. The college's
Shiprock campus consists of this one building. Therefore, the closure
of this building is the closure of the school.
I have known for a long time about the deplorable conditions at NCC's
Shiprock facility because on several occasions I have been visited by
the president and faculty of that school seeking help in repairing and
renovating their facilities. I have responded to those requests for
help by seeking funding for construction under the Tribal College Act.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has failed for several years to seek
funding for construction under that act and the money has never been
appropriated.
Unfortunately we have now come to this: a school enrolling over 400
young native Americans--many of whom have no other alternative for
post-secondary education--will lose their school. This will leave the
Shiprock area without a community college, will deprive at least 87
people of their livelihoods and will devastate the educational plans of
many deserving students.
The safety problems and building deficiencies which the BIA has
catalogued are not trivial--the college has been talking about them for
a long time and trying to get help for a long time. However, I
understand from the college that the work which the BIA has indicated
must be done contains many duplicative listings and accordingly the
cost to bring this school up to minimum standards may be considerably
less than stated in the report.
Furthermore, I am advised that the cost of repair may well be less
than the cost of demolition. It just does not seem to make sense to
demolish a school when it could be kept open for the same sum.
My amendment requires the Bureau of Indian Affairs to report to the
Congress within 30 days the measures which the Assistant Secretary
intends to take concerning the physical structure of the building and a
list of the resources that are required to alleviate the health and
safety hazards that have resulted from the poor condition of that
structure.
I understand that the college has many questions about the inspection
report and the estimate of repair which the BIA has produced. I myself
have many questions about the situation which I hope can be answered
through this report.
I am hopeful that some way can be found to keep this school open.
This report will be an important first step in that process. The school
year is near commencing and I think it is very important that we go
ahead with this amendment at this time.
I, also, of course, commend my colleague, Senator Domenici, who is a
cosponsor of this amendment with me. I know both of us urge the
adoption of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment that
Senator Bingaman has just called up. I am a cosponsor. It is really an
unbelievable situation. We just have to get some answers. We cannot
close this campus, which is the principal place to educate many, many
Navajo Indians. We just cannot let this happen.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Shiprock Agency Safety Management Office
has notified the Shiprock campus of Navajo Community College that it
must immediately vacate building 1228 which houses the entire Shiprock
campus program. This decision calls for at least 50 percent of repairs
being complete before the building will be allowed to be reopened.
Estimated repair costs are $8.4 million.
This decision can be appealed to the BIA area office in Window Rock
and the central office here in Washington, DC. The fall program might
not be available to some 400 students unless we are able to find a way
to ensure that the doors will be open.
Our amendment calls for a report to pinpoint what is needed to keep
the Navajo Community College Shiprock campus open and serving its
students. The fact that the facility has been able to reach this state
of deterioration is a shame that should be rectified.
I am a bit puzzled by the lack of coordination within the
Administration. It strikes me as very strange that the BIA can mandate
the spending of money to repair a building while no requests for funds
to address the problem have been made. I hope the report clarifies the
internal budget process that allows this kind of emergency to happen.
The President's budget had no request of any kind to address the
problems at the Shiprock campus.
I urge my colleagues to support our effort to clarify this matter at
the earliest possible date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment offered by
Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. We have no objection to that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment has been reviewed on this side
of the aisle. We have no objection and are prepared to recommend its
adoption by the Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2411) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Indian Health
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Indians supported a President in the
last election based on the false perception that he would respond
generously to their needs. Instead, American Indians are seeing a
President who holds out the promise of a better health care system,
while dismantling the substandard one they already have in place. This
is hardly what the Indian people had in mind when they voted in
overwhelming numbers for this President.
By treaty, law, court decisions, and policy declarations, the U.S.
Government has forged a special relationship with America's poorest
minority group. While supporting and encouraging self-determination,
the U.S. Government remains directly responsible for providing health
care and education for American Indians.
While there are many other areas of responsibility like housing,
economic development, law enforcement, and natural resource protection,
I would like to focus my colleagues' attention on the two key Federal
responsibilities of health care and education for American Indians.
Few Members of the Congress seem to be aware of the fact that the
President's budget for fiscal year 1995 proposed a reduction of $247
million or 12.7 percent from the 1994 Indian Health Service [IHS]
budget. Fortunately, Chairman Byrd, Chairman Inouye of the Indian
Committee, and other Senators and Representatives have worked
diligently to successfully overturn this disastrous recommendation.
The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, facing the same
tight budget situation as the President faces, did more than replenish
these vital funds. The subcommittee has recommended a total IHS Fiscal
Year 1995 budget of $1.969 billion, which is $26 million more than last
year's budget.
The original proposed budget effectively barred the hiring of new
doctors, nurses, and other key hospital staff even though new hospitals
and clinics are planned to open this fall. Other staff reductions were
threatening to reduce critical medical services nationwide. The
administration, in an unusual amendment to its original budget
submission, restored half of the reduction, or about $125 million. This
was done after many objections were heard about the truly negative
impact on Indian people of the original IHS budget for 1995.
In my own home State of New Mexico, a national priority 75-bed
hospital in Shiprock will be competed this fall at a cost of about $55
million. Under the President's plan, fully half of the new facility
would have been left idle despite the well-documented need for
immediate increases in medical service delivery. The Shiprock area is
one of the fastest growing Indian areas in America.
Thanks to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, $9.4
million will be set aside for medical and supportive staff at the
Shiprock hospital, known as the Northern Navajo Medical Center. The
Tohatchi Clinic is also included in congressional restoration action at
a level of $3.4 million. This facility faced similar problems of idle
capital investments in an area of high medical needs.
The IHS is the Federal agency directly responsible for providing
health care to Indians through a system of hospitals, clinics, and
centers. The IHS delivers babies, fixes broken limbs, provides surgery,
treats cancer, gives dental care, and tackles mental illnesses.
In addition, the IHS provides necessary sanitation facilities for
Indian housing and community needs. Unfortunately the sanitation
facilities construction budget is sadly inadequate. The President
originally requested no funds for poor and failing systems. Often,
there is no system at all.
In New Mexico alone, every pueblo and tribe has at least one request
in to the IHS for solid waste improvements, lagoon expansion, well
construction or repair, pumps, meters, housing support, sewer system
improvements, or facility replacements. This list is four pages long in
single line summaries. To raise all Indian tribes and communities to a
level I sanitation deficiency classification would cost $1.7 billion in
the Albuquerque area alone.
After reconsidering his initial mistake, the President increased his
original budget for sanitation facilities from zero to $42.5 million.
Fortunately, the Senate subcommittee has increased this amount to $85.1
million. Even with this increase, I remain disheartened that we will be
unable to help New Mexico Pueblos like Zuni and Acoma tap new sources
of water. At Zuni Pueblo, the water has a rotten egg smell, ruins water
heaters, and cannot be used in many hospital applications. This
Pueblo's request for $13 million has gone unanswered for 5 years. I am
still seeking a multiyear approach with possible cost sharing as a
funding device.
On the education side of the ledger, it is a sad fact that Indian
children have more impediments to completing a good education than all
other Americans. Their dropout rate is the highest in the nation at 36
percent, compared to 28 percent for Hispanics and 22 percent for
blacks.
According to ``Indian Nations At Risk'' (1991), prepared by the U.S.
Department of Education, poor academic achievement is the norm for 60
percent of native American students. Among all ethnic groups, Indian
children have the highest percentage--32.3 percent--of those students
performing below basic skill levels in mathematics. Indian students
have the smallest percentage of those performing at the advanced
level--4.8 percent. In short, there is a greater percentage of Indians
performing at the poorest levels than any other group and a smaller
portion at the advanced levels than any other student group in
mathematics.
By way of comparison, 15.5 percent of White students perform at the
below basic skill level in mathematics, half the Indian level, and 22.4
percent of white students are in the advanced category--more than four
times the Indian achievers. Asian students perform better, Hispanics
and blacks are below whites but above Indians in achievement in
mathematics. Indians remain at the bottom in this particular category
and others as well.
The education problem for American Indians is well analyzed in
``Indian Nations At Risk'' and was addressed by the White House
Conference on Indian Education in 1992.
The administration appears to be dabbling around the edges of the
current and clearly inadequate educational system for Indians. I must
give the administration credit for the proposed increases in the Indian
School Equalization Program [ISEP]--$12.4 million was added by the
President. This is a needed and helpful, but slight increase in a total
ISEP effort of $261.8 million. At this level, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs [BIA] estimates that payments to schools with Indian students
will increase to $2,992 per weighted student unit from the current
level of $2,874. With such factors as boarding schools and special
education needs factored in, actual per-Indian student expenditures
average over $4,000 under this account.
A major weakness of the BIA education program for Indian students is
the program for facilities management and construction. I have just
received the sad word that the Shiprock Campus of Navajo Community
College is being closed because the buildings have been condemned.
Some 450 students will be without classrooms this fall unless we are
able to resolve this problem in the very near future. This condemnation
highlights the type of problem generally pervading BIA school
facilities.
I am also very familiar with a BIA elementary school on the Mescalero
Apache reservation in New Mexico that was burned to the ground almost 5
years ago. This school remains a temporary school in a community center
as very little is done to build the needed new school. There are about
600 elementary school students on the Mescalero Apache reservation.
Estimates are that hundreds of millions of dollars are necessary to
build every needed school and bring every existing Indian school up to
standard. In the face of this $550 million problem, the President
requested $43 million, primarily for repair and improvement of existing
facilities. There are no funds requested by the administration for new
school construction or for the planning and design of any new BIA
schools. Last year, only $13 million was requested for planning and
design of new school construction.
Mr. President, I do not pretend to have the answers for every problem
in Indian health care or education. As a Senator from New Mexico, I am
very familiar with the wonderful Indian people who live in pueblos and
on reservations. I know their joys and their problems. There are 19
pueblos, 2 Apache tribes, and about a third of the Navajo Nation in New
Mexico.
Self determination and economic independence are certainly goals to
be admired and pursued for the Indian people of New Mexico and this
Nation. In the meantime, we cannot shirk our Government's treaties,
laws, court cases, and policy declarations in favor of the Indian
people of America. The Interior appropriations bill before us makes
important improvements in this area, but much remains to be done. We
should not be dealing in a new round of false promises where specific
and clear commitments are most necessary.
I look forward to a better record on the part of the administration
when the 1996 budget is submitted. In the interim, I will work for
better budget decisions to help Indian people reach the quality of
health care enjoyed by most Americans. I will also be involved to see
that Indian education programs are more responsive to the realities of
life on the reservation. We certainly need more innovation to help
Indian students up the educational ladder.
If we need change in America, we need it in Indian health and
education programs. It is particularly important that we do not deliver
politics as usual to the first Americans.
amendment no. 2412
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Southwestern Fisheries Technology
Center)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and
Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2412.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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:
On page 10, line 20, strike ``$45,525,000'' and insert
``$49,848,000''.
On page 2, line 11, strike ``$599,230,000'' and insert
``$598,480,000''.
On page 2, line 25, strike ``$599,230,000'' and insert
``$598,480,000''.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the
fiscal year 1995 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. The
amendment I am proposing will provide funding for the continued
construction of the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center through
the Fish and Wildlife Service. My distinguished colleague from New
Mexico, Senator Bingaman, joins me as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center consists of the Dexter
National Fish Hatchery and the Mora Fish Hatchery in New Mexico.
The Fish and Wildlife Service will have obligated all available
appropriations for the center by the end of this fiscal year, 1994.
Further construction on the project will not proceed in fiscal year
1995 without the funds included in this amendment.
The amendment provides $4,323,000 to fund phase 2 of the Southwestern
Fisheries Technology Center. This funding is needed to construct a
combined administration and dry laboratory facility and a new storage
and maintenance building at Dexter.
The Dexter National Fish Hatchery is over 60 years old. It was
established in 1931 to meet the demands for warmwater game fish in the
Southwest.
Since 1978, the Dexter Fish Hatchery has focused its work on
endangered species of fish. Today, Dexter is the only facility in the
Nation dedicated exclusively to holding, studying, culturing, and
distributing endangered fish for restocking in waters where they
occurred naturally. Dexter currently is working on 13 endangered and 3
threatened fish species.
In fiscal year 1992, Congress began the task of rehabilitating the
60-year-old Dexter facilities. With phase 1 funding, a new production
facility is being constructed.
To build the production facility, the current administration, wet
laboratory, and storage buildings at Dexter had to be demolished. A 54-
year-old residence is currently being used as temporary space while the
new production facility is being constructed.
Phase 2 of the Dexter project to build a new administration building,
wet laboratory, and storage buildings is now critical, and these funds
are needed, and can be expended, in fiscal year 1995.
Additional funding is needed for the Mora Hatchery to equip and
outfit the new production building, which is to be constructed with
Phase 1 funding.
Without the Mora funds, the Mora Technology Center cannot initiate
operations to begin native, threatened, and endangered fish production
and technology development.
Mr. President, the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center is a
unique part of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It will be the only
center exclusively dedicated to the breeding and stocking of endangered
fish, as the Dexter Center is now. The Dexter hatchery currently holds
13 endangered and 3 threatened species of fish, which are being
propagated for reintroduction into native habitat as part of endangered
species recovery plans.
Adding $4,323,000 to the bill will significantly advance phase 2 of
this center, and will complete the most significant parts of these
facilities. The adoption of the amendment will allow both the Dexter
and Mora facilities to be up and operating to support the requirements
of the Fish and Wildlife Service, especially those related to
endangered and threatened species of fish.
The full amount of the budget authority associated with this
amendment--$4,323,000--can be accommodated within the subcommittee's
existing 602(b) allocation.
The fiscal year 1995 outlays associated with this amendment are
$648,525 under the Fish and Wildlife Service construction account in
fiscal year 1995. These outlays are fully offset in the amendment.
I sincerely appreciate the assistance of the distinguished chairman
of the Appropriations Committee in the consideration of this amendment.
I thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma for his review of this
amendment.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. President, this amendment is offset by reducing funding in the
bill for two New Mexico items funded in the bill through the Bureau of
Land Management.
The reduction in BLM will achieve the $648,525 in outlays needed to
fund the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center.
Mr. President, I understand both Senator Byrd for the majority and
Senator Nickles for the minority have no objection to this amendment.
I am pleased Senator Bingaman is my cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. If I could briefly comment, I compliment my colleague
for the amendment. I cosponsor it and urge its adoption. I do believe
we have found acceptable offsets which will allow this funding to be
included in the bill. These are very important projects for our State,
both for Mora County and north Chavez County.
We very much believe we need to go forward with the completion of
these projects. This is important language, important funding to keep
in the bill so that completion can occur.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friends and
colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, particularly Senator
Domenici, because he has been working for several days now trying to
find some offsets that were suitable and acceptable. He has done both
and is funding a project I know he believes is very, very important to
his State and to our country. I compliment him as well for finding some
offsets within his State.
We have no objection to this amendment.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the two Senators from New
Mexico on the amendment. They have worked long and worked hard on it.
I am prepared to accept the amendment and recommend that the Senate
adopt it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I just extend my appreciation to
Senator Bingaman for his work on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2412) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire from the
distinguished chairman and the distinguished comanager from Oklahoma as
to what advice they might give the Senate with respect to what is
anticipated for the remainder of the evening on this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am happy to state to the distinguished
Senator that it is my belief that within 30 minutes, we will be voting
on final passage of the bill.
That is the outlook at this point. I may be mistaken. There is one
other possible amendment----
Mr. WARNER. I interpret that the time could be short.
Mr. BYRD. We have several colloquies. I might just say, I think it is
a pretty good bet at an outside we would be voting within 30 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will just notify the chairman of the
committee, we have been working this side of the aisle, because we had
a lot of amendments that were pending. I think we have had great
cooperation from our Members. To my knowledge, we only have one
amendment that is outstanding that may require a vote. I think the
remainder of the amendments have either been withdrawn or we have been
able to work out colloquies to the Member's satisfaction.
That one amendment that is outstanding that may require a vote is
Senator McCain's amendment. I understand that the chairman of the
committee is not willing to accept that, and so I will inform Senator
McCain and see if we cannot get that amendment withdrawn or voted on
very shortly. So we should notify all Members that final passage may
well occur pretty quickly.
I appreciate the chairman's leadership and cooperation.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words.
Before the Senator from Virginia leaves, I understand now that, based
on some words that I just received, it probably will be 7 o'clock on
final passage.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it appears, from checking the list on both
sides of the aisle, that action has now been reduced to various and
sundry colloquies, and if my colleague, Mr. Nickles, agrees with me, I
will ask unanimous consent that these several colloquies be entered
into the Record. I very shortly will enumerate them.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have contacted all the Members who had
amendments that were on the list. Several have withdrawn those
amendments. Others we have been able to satisfy with a colloquy. And
some of the amendments we have accepted. So I am not aware of any
additional amendments from our side on the bill, and so I think we are
done.
I also might mention to the chairman there is no request on this side
for a rollcall vote on final passage. It would be my hope that we could
pass the bill by voice vote.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am advised on this side of the aisle that
there are no further amendments. I would share the desire of the
Senator that there be no rollcall vote on final passage. There will be
a rollcall vote on the conference report, however, when it is brought
back to the Senate.
Now, the list of colloquies, Mr. President: Bingaman and Byrd; Bond
and Byrd; Bumpers and Byrd; Campbell and Byrd; five colloquies by
Craig, Byrd, and Nickles; a colloquy by Danforth, Byrd, and Nickles;
one by Daschle and Byrd; Dole and Byrd; Dorgan and Byrd; Faircloth,
Byrd, and Nickles; Hatfield and Byrd; Inouye and Byrd; Johnston, Akaka,
Byrd, and Nickles; two colloquies by Johnston and Byrd; one colloquy
between Kennedy and Byrd; one colloquy among Leahy, Lugar, Byrd, and
Nickles; one involving Leahy, Lieberman, Byrd, and Nickles; one
involving Mathews, Byrd, and Nickles; one involving Metzenbaum, Byrd,
and Nickles; one involving Moynihan, D'Amato, and Byrd; one between
Murray and Byrd; another one between Murray and Byrd; one involving
Simpson, Byrd, and Nickles; one involving Wallop, Byrd, and Nickles;
one involving Wallop and Byrd; one involving Wellstone and Byrd; one
involving Coverdell, Nunn, Byrd, and Nickles.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned
colloquies, with the exception of the last one, be included in the
Record as though read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
funding provided by the u.s. geological survey through the federal/
state cooperative water program
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to engage the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a colloquy.
Mr. BYRD. I am agreeable to engaging in a colloquy with the Senator
from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Water is the lifeblood of the West, as you know, and we
are largely dependent on underground bodies of water to serve domestic,
commercial, and industrial uses. As the West urbanizes and
industrializes, the demands placed on our aquifers grow ever greater.
The citizens of Albuquerque and the surrounding communities north of
the city are growing increasingly concerned that the aquifer is being
depleted at a faster rate than it is recharging. The long term
implications of a net negative drawdown of the aquifer could spell
disaster for these communities.
The U.S. Geological Survey, in conjunction with appropriate non-
Federal entities, could undertake activities such as drilling
monitoring wells that would provide much needed information on aquifer
levels. I understand that the Federal/State Cooperative Water Program
is a highly competitive program for which proposals much be submitted.
I ask the Chairman whether we can expect that scientific and technical
assistance for hydrologic studies could be provided by the USGS,
through the Federal/State Cooperative Water Program, if a proposal is
submitted by the State or local government(s) as a priority need?
Mr. BYRD. That is correct. Costs associated with this study could be
shared equally by the USGS and a non-Federal cooperating agency, if a
proposal is submitted by a local or State government as a priority
need.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
rolla research center
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations with regard
to the terms and conditions of the Bureau of Mines' consolidation and
closure plans as they relate to the Rolla Research Center in Rolla, MO.
As the chairman knows, I am deeply troubled about the impact the
administration's plan will have on Missouri's mining industry, the
ongoing environmental cleanup effort, as well as the impact on the
University of Missouri-Rolla, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, and others. I remain strongly opposed to the
administration's plan and the process by which the decisions were
reached.
Be that as it may, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman
who has worked under very difficult budgetary constraints to supply an
additional $3 million to provide partial funding to continue reduced
operations of the Rolla, MO, and Tuscaloosa, AL, research centers and
the Alaska field operations, all of which were scheduled for immediate
closure under the Bureau's consolidation plan.
As we move into fiscal year 1995, I ask the distinguished chairman,
what is the intent of the committee regarding transition of the Rolla
Research Center?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, in fiscal year 1995, it is the intent of the committee
that the Bureau provide adequate funding to maintain a necessary staff
approximating 25 FTE's at the Rolla Center which should allow a
successful collocation with the University of Missouri-Rolla to
preserve their capacity to conduct environmental remediation research.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that until such
time that the property is transferred to the University of Missouri-
Rolla, the Bureau of Mines should preserve the personnel necessary to
operate the core equipment base and that all facilities needed to
accomplish the continuing research will be kept at the Rolla Center and
that these facilities will include all installed equipment such as
benches, hoods, phones, and computer systems as well as all analytical
instrumentation and metal processing equipment needed for planned
environmental research, especially those devices deemed to be the core
equipment base?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is the understanding of the committee.
Mr. BOND. Is it correct the committee has made this recommendation in
part, because of the Rolla Centers' demonstrated skill and strategic
location for major metal processing and remediation operations, in
part, to assist the Twin Cities Center in its efforts toward
remediation, in part, to prevent the local expertise from being lost,
and in part, to avoid the added costs and local economic trauma of a
total shutdown?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Missouri is correct.
Mr. BOND. Finally, as this transition proceeds, I will continue to
work with the chairman to monitor, evaluate, and, if necessary, to
consider appropriate modifications should the Bureau's implementation
prove unworkable or unwise. Will the chairman assist me in this effort?
Mr. BYRD. As always, I will be happy to work with the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his assistance.
energy efficiency programs
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my
distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. As my colleague knows, I have
long supported State programs which promote the use of energy efficient
and renewable energy technologies. In fact, I cosponsored the
legislation which authorized many of these programs, including the
State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional Conservation
Program--also known as schools and hospitals--and, the Low Income
Weatherization Program. While I serve on the subcommittee and
understand the funding limitations we operate under, I am very
concerned by the committee's proposed reductions from the President's
requests for energy efficiency programs in the Interior bill. The
President proposed an increase of $288 million in fiscal year 1995 to
implement the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to fund various new
initiatives and expand others, and to implement the voluntary programs
contained in the climate change action plan, many of which are based on
the Energy Policy Act. The House provided an increase of $134 million
for these accounts, but the Senate committee was only able to provide
an increase of $53 million for this important area.
I was a Member of this body in the 1970's when the State programs
were originally authorized. In the fiscal year 1979 appropriations
bill, total funding for the State Energy Conservation Program, the
Institutional Conservation Program and the Low Income Weatherization
Program was $558 million. Accounting for inflation, to maintain these
programs at the fiscal year 1979 level, we would need to provide them
with over $1 billion. This bill will provide only $264.4 million.
These programs help create good jobs in our economy and leverage
large amounts of non-Federal dollars. For example, a recent survey
showed that Federal funds flowing through the State Energy Conservation
Program leverage $17 to $25 in non-Federal funds for every Federal
dollar invested.
The Schools and Hospitals Program cost-shares the installation of
energy efficiency measures in qualified buildings, reducing medical
costs and permitting more money to go directly to education of our
children. The State Energy Conservation Program delivers energy
services to every sector of our economy, including the small business
community in which I have a special interest, not to mention our
homeowners.
In light of the important national goals these programs promote,
especially the State grant programs, I believe the House-passed funding
levels are preferable to what we have been able to do.
I wish to ask my distinguished colleague whether, in light of the
importance of these programs, he could work toward restoring the
funding in these programs to the House-passed levels during the
conference which will follow today's floor action?
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate my colleague's strong support for these
programs, and I will consider the concerns of the Senior Senator from
Arkansas for the energy conservation programs.
u.s. bureau of mines
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from
West Virginia, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to
yield to me for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy on the issue of
downsizing at the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I know the chairman has worked diligently to enact the
principles of the National Performance Review by downsizing our Federal
Government, and I commend him for his work thus far. I am sure he can
understand my concern about the Bureau of Mines downsizing plan, as it
greatly affects the mining industry, which is very important to my
State of Colorado.
As I understand it, the focus of the reinventing government proposal
is to cut unnecessary programs and employees from the Federal
Government. Understandably, the Bureau of Mines does much of its
research in the States, and I agree that the Bureau's plans to downsize
must include some cuts in the field. Still, I believe that the
Washington, DC office of the Bureau should share an equal burden of
cuts in employees, particularly because there will be a need for less
oversight if there are fewer employees in the field.
According to the information provided to me by the Bureau of Mines,
the field offices will be sharing a greater burden of cuts than the
Washington, DC office in fiscal year 1995. My office has been in
continual contact with the Bureau of Mines and we have been told that
most, if not all of those 145 positions listed as ``unallocated'' will
be designated to the field. Assigning these 145 positions to the field
would equal the burden of cuts. Would the distinguished chairman agree
with me that with respect to the Bureau of Mines, that the Washington
DC, staff should be reduced in sync with the field? And further, is it
also the Senator's understanding that most, if not all of the 145
unallocated positions will be designated to the field?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I believe the Senator from Colorado makes a valid
point. This administration has stressed the need for each agency to
examine thoroughly its functions and cut wasteful spending. While the
Bureau of Mines has done this, I agree with you that the Washington
office of the Bureau should not grow as employees in the field are cut,
and as the Senator says, the Washington office should share an ``equal
burden'' of the affects from downsizing. The Washington office should
bear its fair share of cuts consistent with the programmatic
realignment which is to shift the center of focus of Bureau operations
away from Washington, DC and to the field. To answer his second
question, yes, the Bureau has assured me that most if not all of those
145 employees listed in the Bureau's numbers as unallocated will be
assigned to the field.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the chairman. I would now like to discuss the
issue of reimbursable employees. The Bureau of Mines has informed me
that of the 90 full time employees [FTEs] that are scheduled to be cut
in the Denver field offices in fiscal year 1995, the Bureau expects
approximately 40 to 45 employees will be funded by reimbursable
agreements. Is that the distinguished chairman's understanding?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Bureau of Mines informs me that of the 90 FTEs
slated for cuts this fiscal year from the Denver field offices, they
expect 40 to 45 FTEs will be funded under reimbursable agreements.
Mr. CAMPBELL. According to the budget numbers provided to me by the
Bureau of Mines, the Washington, DC office will get an increase in
funds of more than $1 million in fiscal year 1995 to a total of more
than $64 million. This increase in funds occurs at the same time that
the Bureau is cutting and even closing several field offices. The
Bureau has assured me, however, that of the $64 million allocated to
the Washington, DC office, nearly $8 million will be allocated to the
field, including; $3 million for health and safety, $3.8 million to
environmental technology and $450,000 to Denver for the personnel
division. Reducing the Washington, DC budget by $8 million would bring
the Washington, DC budget to close to $56 million. I continue to
believe that it is important for the Bureau to ensure that an equal
burden of cuts be shared by the Washington, DC office. Is it the
chairman's understanding that of the $64 million in the budget account
for the Washington, DC office of the Bureau of Mines in fiscal year
1995, about $8 million is intended to be distributed to the field?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Finally, I would like to ask the chairman if he would
be willing to try to include language in the statement of managers that
will accompany the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations conference
report pertaining to this discussion.
Mr. BYRD. It is my intention to work with the Senator and take to
conference the language pertaining to the clarifications we have just
discussed.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to thank the Senator for his time and
attention to this matter.
Mr. BYRD. It has been my pleasure working with the Senator from
Colorado and I assure him that I will continue to monitor the
downsizing at the Bureau of Mines to ensure that their efforts are
consistent with the spirit of the Reinventing Government initiative. I
commend the Senator for his commitment to this issue.
forest service roadless area entry
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the Committee on Appropriations
retained in this bill the full level of road funding sought by the
Clinton administration in order to accomplish the full timber sale
program requested by the administration. Accomplishing this
administration's timber objective certainly would be more difficult,
and perhaps impossible, if entry into roadless areas is restricted as
suggested in the report language of the other body. I am troubled that
roadless area entry continues to arise as an issue notwithstanding the
provisions of completed forest plans.
In a letter dated June 9, Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas
described the adverse impacts of a prohibition on roadless area entry.
He particularly noted the importance of access to released roadless
areas for the purpose of remedying forest disease, and fuels buildup
that threatens massive forest fires. Did the committee consider that
letter?
Mr. BYRD. In response to the Chief's letter, the committee has
attempted to provide as much flexibility as possible to the Forest
Service to manage the forests, consistent with current law and the
forest plans.
Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's view. Let me further add
that the Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, has expressed
strong concerns about road funding needs for fiscal year 1995,
including strong opposition to substantial cuts imposed in the bill
approved by the other body. The Chief has indicated that new road
construction--a very small amount of which would enter released
roadless areas in fiscal year 1995, is critical toward addressing
wildfire, insect infestation, and forest disease problems.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senate has regularly used authorizing legislation to
designate wilderness or wilderness study areas within roadless lands.
Does the subcommittee agree that authorizing legislation may be used to
address the roadless area issue?
Mr. BYRD. As indicated, we have sought to provide flexibility.
Restrictions should be addressed either through authorizing legislation
or through amendments or revisions to forest plans.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
clarification on this matter.
tree measurement cruising
Mr. CRAIG. I would appreciate the chairman's clarification on another
issue of concern, regarding tree measurement sale preparation
requirements, conducted by the Forest Service. My understanding is that
the committee intends that current year language, concerning
implementation of timber sale tree measurement sales, is to be carried
forward to apply in the same way for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator's understanding is correct. The committee
intends that policy directed by language included for the current year
fiscal year--1994--would remain in effect for fiscal year 1995,
requiring use of tree measurement to assess timber sale volume, with
certain specific exceptions for salvage and thinning.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman. Further, as the chairman knows, the
fiscal year 1994 Interior Appropriations act directed full
implementation of tree measurement, except in selected areas for
salvage or thinnings. In addition, the scaling method could be used
where needed to support the Agency's efforts to evaluate and monitor
its cruising techniques and help assure accurate timber sale volume
measurements.
Mr. BYRD. It is the intention of the committee to make sure that the
Forest Service continue to take the necessary steps to assure sale
volume accuracy, as tree measurement techniques go into full effect. To
the Senator's last point, the committee expects that any sales prepared
during fiscal year 1995 which involve the use of scaling, for allowed
exceptions, would involve Forest Service personnel, or will be
accomplished by contract issued by the Forest Service and paid for
using deposits by the timber purchaser, as was provided for in fiscal
year 1994.
Mr. NICKLES. The minority side also agrees. The committee recognized,
in the 1994 Interior Appropriation Act, that in moving to tree
measurement, further monitoring must be done to assure accuracy.
forest service research
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the Committee on Appropriations
has adopted a level of funding which is supportive of Forest Service
research activities. I'm certain you will agree that research is
critical in order to provide the foundation for management decisions
which have become increasingly complex. For that reason, I am concerned
that an important research project at the Intermountain Research
Station will not be funded in fiscal year 1995. Since this research
project is in danger of being discontinued 2 years before it is
complete, may I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member of
the subcommittee if I could engage them in a colloquy?
Mr. BYRD. I understand the concern that the Senator from Idaho has
regarding this research. I am happy to respond to his inquiries.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman. Because of the decline in anadromous
salmon populations in Idaho, it has become important to understand the
interactions of management activities such as grazing and riparian
protection along streams. One study designed to learn specifically of
these relationships is Riparian-Streams Ecosystems Research No. 4202.
This study has been underway for 3 years and has involved
considerable commitment from livestock grazers and other parties
working with the Forest Service. Fence exclosures have been built at
some expense and other on-site experiments have begun to yield
information. If this research is dropped, it would appear that
appropriated research funds from past years have not been used to the
best advantage. Data gathered thus far might not be statistically
reliable if the study period is cut short. I ask the ranking member if
he would concur?
Mr. NICKLES. I understand the Senator's concern about cutting off
this research in midstream. The committee has provided appropriations
to fully fund this research project in fiscal years 1992-94.
Mr. CRAIG. Then is it the committee's view that the Forest Service
should take every opportunity within its fiscal year 1995 research
appropriations to continue this research project in order to gain its
full benefit?
Mr. BYRD. The committee understands the need for research to
establish the best management practices for riparian areas. The budget
proposed funding for the Intermountain Research Unit No. 4202 at a
level of $447,000, which is less than has been provided in prior years.
As the Senator knows, today's budget environment requires that
restrictions be made. This bill is funded $336 million below last
year's level. So, while the work on this project may be important, the
level of funding must be balanced against the many other needs in this
bill. Within the funds provided for this unit, the Forest Service
should seek to continue this research effort.
Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's view.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
clarification on this matter.
materials, metals, and minerals research at inel
Mr. CRAIG. I would like to call attention to some most valuable
research that is funded in this appropriations bill. The Bureau of
Mines utilizes the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory's Research
Center for advanced research projects related to Bureau of Mines'
missions that can be conducted more efficiently at the INEL. This
relationship exists because INEL has facilities and staff that can
conduct this research at a lower cost to the Federal Government.
There are two primary areas of focus for this research: First,
development of advanced technologies for recovery of metals from low-
grade resources and wastes, and second, development of advanced
materials and processes to produce superior materials and facilitate
use of substitute materials. Included are projects on solvent
extraction of metals, biologically assisting minerals processing,
production of titanium from a plasma reactor, ferrous alloy research,
neural network modeling of cupola furnaces, noncontracting
nondestructive evaluation for materials characterization, nanostructure
materials and fracture mechanics of interfaces.
These are very important areas of research and offer some fantastic
future possibilities for metal use. The areas being addressed reduce
waste and open new and innovative methods of metal production, uses,
and evaluation. The research is unique and is taking us to the
threshold of metal research and development in the next century and I
encourage the continuation of this arrangement between the Bureau of
Mines and the INEL.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Idaho for calling this research to
the attention of the Senate.
Mr. NICKLES. I recognize the importance of this most crucial research
and thank the Senator for his statement.
hagerman fish culture experimental station
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as the chairman is aware, we have a
situation in Idaho which deserves our attention. The Hagerman Fish
Culture Experimental Station, formerly the Hagerman Field Station, in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a facility in which essential,
basic research in fish nutrition and hatchery products is being
conducted.
This station was proposed for closure in the fiscal year 1994 budget.
A colloquy among the Senators from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], Oklahoma
[Mr. Nickles], and this Senator on the fiscal year 1994 Interior
Appropriations bill suggested, if funds became available, that the
facility remain open and equipment be held in place and made available
to the University of Idaho and the aquaculture industry on a
cooperative basis until a long-term plan could be worked out for
operation of the station primarily by non-Federal entities. This
arrangement has not yet been completed, although all parties have made
substantial progress in this direction. The Fish and Wildlife Service
has kept the station open. The University of Idaho and the Western
Regional Aquaculture Consortium, among others, have contributed
significant support and are conducting substantial research there.
Additional time is needed to finalize a research agenda and plan of
operation, but the danger remains that the station may be closed
precipitously due to a lack of appropriations.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am aware of that possibility, since no funds were
proposed in the budget for the station for fiscal year 1995.
Mr. CRAIG. Loss of this facility would be very unfortunate. Hagerman
undertakes research that is key to the large aquaculture industry in
Idaho and of great usefulness nationwide. This is an excellent example
of State, Federal, and private sector cooperation. Research results
from Hagerman have been put to work at other hatcheries outside Idaho,
such as Bozeman in Montana and Stuttgart in Arkansas.
Mr. NICKLES. I understand that Hagerman provides valuable information
to the aquaculture industry. What are the opportunities within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for continuing the research underway?
Mr. CRAIG. I have had continuing discussions with the agency and
other parties. They believe that an arrangement can be finalized
whereby the University of Idaho would continue to shoulder greater
responsibility in the research under some form of cooperative agreement
or lease. The University is supportive of this proposal, but needs time
to plan and arrange funding for the venture. In fact, the University
has been following through in this regard and plans an increasing
involvement.
However, this will not be possible if Hagerman is closed and its
equipment removed. Until the details of a long-term agreement can be
finalized, I am urging the Fish and Wildlife Service to hold the
equipment in place and maintain the facility so as not to foreclose
their management options. Ideally, the assignment of adequate non-
Federal personnel for the actual station operation and cooperative
research would facilitate a long-term definition of mission and
transfer of responsibilities.
Mr. NICKLES. I agree that the Senator from Idaho has outlined a
reasonable, workable solution. The agency should continue to try and
work out an agreement with the university and any other appropriate
parties and I would lend my support to the Senator's proposal.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe the agency
would be able to handle this matter internally would like us to see
what it will do. However, I believe we should maintain some oversight.
Last year, I asked the chairman and ranking member if we could revisit
this matter again this year if necessary. I believe much progress has
been made and would want the current arrangement to be continued.
Mr. BYRD. While I am willing to encourage the Fish and Wildlife
Service to continue working with the University to produce a
cooperative agreement for the use of the equipment and the facility, I
do not wish for us to direct the continued operation of a station
proposed for closure in the budget and for which operational dollars
are not included in fiscal year 1995. The Service should do everything
possible to help ensure that good use can be made of the equipment and
the facility. If the University or other non-Federal partners wish to
take over the facility, the Service should work toward the development
of whatever agreements might be necessary to facilitate such a
transfer.
pallid sturgeon recovery plan
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, on November 7, 1993, the Fish and
Wildlife Service released the pallid sturgeon recovery plan. According
to the Governor of Missouri, the plan differs substantially from the
draft that was offered for comment and review to the State of Missouri.
Five technical studies which were critical for the plan's conclusions
only became available after the close of the comment period on the
draft report. Our State feels very strongly that it should at least
have had the opportunity to consider and comment on all of the
important information which Fish and Wildlife used to reach its
conclusions. On June 17, 1994, the Governor of Missouri wrote the
Secretary of the Interior, asking that the comment period be reopened
for a period of at least 60 days. The Secretary has not responded to
that letter. Does the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee agree that the Department of the interior
should re-open the comment period in order to permit Missouri and other
States the chance to comment on the plan and all important information
which went into preparing the plan?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns voiced by the
Senator from Missouri about time for adequate review of information
used in the development of recovery plans. I would urge the Secretary
to use any authorities available to re-open the comment period.
Mr. NICKLES. I share the concerns of the Senator from Missouri and
agree with the distinguished chairman.
tree thinning
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as Senator Byrd knows, it appears that
the Forest Service will no longer be allowed to use salvage trust funds
for thinning trees in the future. Unfortunately the budgeting process
for the Forest Service is based on a 3-year cycle and the Forest
Service is not able to adjust its budget for fiscal year 1995 to
accommodate this clarification in policy. As a result, the Black Hills
National Forest will not fully achieve the objectives of the Forest
plan in fiscal year 1995.
According to the Black Hills National Forest land management plan,
stands of trees need to be thinned to prevent insect and disease from
attacking the trees. It is my understanding that salvage trust funds
can be expended in fiscal year 1995 to prepare and administer timber
sales on the Black Hills National Forest for the purpose of thinning
commercial stands of trees, where those stands of trees are in jeopardy
of being infected with insects and disease.
Mr. BYRD. The committee has continued salvage sales, pursuant to the
authorities found in the National Forest Management Act. To the extent
these authorities can be exercised on the Black Hills National Forest,
the Forest Service should seek to do so, consistent with the forest
plan. In addition to the salvage authority, the committee has provided
additional funding in the regular timber sales program to help with
situations such as on the Black Hills National Forest
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chairman. I want to emphasize that in the
long-run, I agree with the policy that salvage funds should not be used
for thinning operations and support the imposition of this restriction
for the fiscal year 1996 budget, after the Black Hills National Forest
has had an opportunity to adjust.
electric vehicles
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman,
Senator Byrd, and the ranking Republican member, Senator Nickles, for
funding electric vehicle field operations at $1,980,000. Kansas State
University has spearheaded a team effort as one of 12 sites across the
country to test and evaluate electric and hybrid vehicle technology. It
is my understanding that the Department of Energy will allocate this
$1,980,000 to these 12 sites, known as the Site Operator Users Task
Force.
The funds provided by the committee will be matched by the site
operators on at least 50-50 basis. Kansas State University will join
with its local partners--Kansas and Missouri utilities--to purchase
five state-of-the-art electric or hybrid vehicles, study multi-phase
electric and hybrid vehicles chargers, purchase advanced technology
hybrid vehicle components, and work with Underwriters Laboratory to
improve the safety of charge stations.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Kansas is correct. This bill does provide
$1,980,000 for electric vehicle field operations. It is also my
understanding that the $1,980,000 is to be allocated by the Department
of Energy to the site operator program participants. The site
operators' program is to be commended, along with the Department of
Energy, for trying to move this promising technology forward.
Mr. DOLE. I would like to conclude my remarks by commending Kansas
State University, Arizona Public Service, Los Angeles Department of
Water & Power, Orcas Power & Light Company in Eastsound, WA, Pacific
Gas & Electric in San Ramon, CA, Potomac Electric Power Company, Platte
River Power Authority in Fort Collins, CO, Southern California Edison,
Texas A&M University, University of South Florida, York Technical
College in Rock Hill, SC, and the United States Navy in Port Hueneme,
CA, for their leadership in developing this exciting and promising
transportation alternative for the 21st century.
Funding to Fight Child Abuse and Neglect on Indian Reservations
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in praise of the distinguished
Chairman of the subcommittee and the committee, Senator Byrd. In this
bill, he has included a measure that I am convinced will save the lives
of countless native American children.
Since my early days as a Member of the other body, I have worked to
reduce the heartbreaking levels and effects of child abuse and neglect
throughout the country. This national problem has reached truly tragic
proportions on Indian reservations, largely due to the staggering
levels of poverty, joblessness, and alcoholism that come from a lack of
economic opportunity for our country's native people.
As a father who has raised four wonderful children, I cannot ignore
the plight of these children. As a legislator, I cannot ignore the
Federal Government's solemn trust obligation to these children. They
are our responsibility. When they suffer the pain of beatings, broken
bones, neglect, and even death, we have failed them.
Mr. President, more than 4 years ago, I held a hearing in Bismarck,
ND, to investigate the causes of child abuse and neglect on the four
Indian reservations in my State. Even I was shocked at some things I
heard. I was especially touched by a little girl named Tamara. Her
foster parents had broken her arm and her leg and torn out her hair.
The social worker who should have been keeping an eye on Tamara had a
caseload of over 200 children.
Following that hearing, I worked very hard to increase the number of
staff social workers on Tamara's Standing Rock Sioux reservation from 1
to 12, which brought enormous relief to their efforts to save the
hundreds of abused and neglected children on that reservation.
Just last month, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee
in my State. I found that the other three reservations in my State, Ft.
Berthold, Devils Lake, and Turtle Mountain, have serious problems with
child abuse and neglect that still are at least as bad as the situation
at Standing Rock was 4 years ago.
The Devils Lake Sioux reservation social services agency, which has
had 13 different people in its three staff social worker positions in
the last 2 years, has literally piles of abuse and neglect reports that
they have never had the staff to review. On the Ft. Berthold
reservation, 8 abused or neglected children attempted suicide in a 2-
week period. I heard testimony about a 3-year-old child on the Turtle
Mountain reservation whose foster parents had locked him in a closet
and starved him. We heard about very young children molested by parents
or step parents. One girl testified that abuse by her father drove her
to start drinking at age 8, until she became an alcoholic at age 14.
In 1990, largely through the efforts of Congress' leader on Indian
Affairs, Chairman Daniel Inouye, and that committee's vice chair,
Senator John McCain, Congress enacted the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act. But we have not funded it at all.
The 1990 Act is a good first step toward fixing this national
tragedy. I am painfully aware of the realities of our Federal budget. I
know we will not be able to fully fund the Act this year.
But I have worked with the distinguished chairman and his very able
staff director, Sue Masica, and counsel Kathleen Wheeler, to provide $2
million in this bill to establish a model program to fight child abuse
and neglect on Indian reservations.
The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Ada
Deer, who participated in my recent hearing in North Dakota and is a
former social worker herself, is very eager to show that we can make a
big difference in native American children's lives with a very modest
investment. She has pledged to work closely with us to provide the
staff and resources in the Aberdeen area to treat and prevent child
abuse on Indian reservations--using the additional funds provided in
this measure.
Secretary Deer plans to use these funds to establish a model
program, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Aberdeen area and on the North
Dakota reservations, to help reservations comply with the 1990 law and
reduce the appalling levels of child abuse and neglect that they must
deal with every day. As I said at our hearing, Secretary Deer's
lifelong interest in preventing and treating child abuse is a breath of
fresh air at BIA. She has brought a new commitment, on behalf of the
Clinton Administration, to addressing a problem that has been ignored
far too long.
Thanks to the funds we are providing in this measure, we finally
will get the chance to give some abused and neglected native American
children a way out. I am confident the model program will succeed and
inspire us to provide the small additional investment we need to
address child abuse and neglect on Indian reservations nationwide.
Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting this amendment.
fws funding
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, in a discussion of a problem of critical importance to North
Dakota.
Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has pulled nearly
all of its Ecological Services Division staff from North Dakota, and
that action is going to have a severe impact of the ability of farmers
to responsibly use the pesticides they need to farm successfully.
In North Dakota, the ecological services program has focused, in
close cooperation with the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, on
the Pesticides Contamination Program. This program tries to ensure that
endangered and threatened species are not harmed by use of agricultural
pesticides. The program allows for reasonable monitoring of the effects
of certain pesticides on animals and plants in specific, sensitive
areas, and such monitoring is required by the Endangered Species Act.
This program is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect
endangered and threatened species in North Dakota, as Federal law
demands, and, at the same time, allow farmers to use pesticides that
are harmless to people, animals, and the natural environment.
A year ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service was appropriated about $21
million in new funding to expand its work related to endangered
species. After expending the additional $21 million, the FWS then
transferred most of the staff and funding for its ecological services
out of the Denver region, including North Dakota, to coastal areas.
This is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable from administrative standpoint because, in order
to meet court-ordered implementation of the Endangered Species Act in
other regions, the FWS is killing a much needed cooperative pesticides
program which allows rational implementation of the Endangered Species
Act in North Dakota.
The FWS action is also unacceptable because Congress provided
specifically in its fiscal year 1994 appropriations for additional
funding to meet the court-ordered requirements I just mentioned.
However, the FWS went outside our specific funding provisions and made
a wholesale transfer of funding out of the Denver region.
I ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee: Did
he envision that such a withdrawal of funding from Region Eight and the
North Dakota Pesticides Contamination Program would occur under his
committee's 1994 appropriations bill?
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for calling the
committee's attention to this problem, and for his question.
Congress provided additional funding in fiscal year 1994 so the FWS
could meet its endangered species responsibilities without terminating
necessary programs in other regions. However, as the Senator knows,
with the administrative and FTE reductions proposed in the fiscal year
1994 and fiscal year 1995 budgets, some reductions and realignments may
be necessary. But within the resources provided, the Service should
continue to take the steps necessary to assist with the North Dakota
Pesticides Contamination Program.
visitors center at hemphill knob
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to speak about a project
that has come to my attention in the Senate Interior Appropriations
bill. This project concerns the building of the Parkway Headquarters
and Visitor's Center at Hemphill Knob in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park's Blue Ridge Parkway.
The Blue Ridge Parkway was established as a unit of the National Park
System by an act of Congress on June 30, 1936. The act's purpose was to
create a 470-mile motor road between Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and
Tennessee that would provide a means for leisurely travel and
recraetion in a variety of significant southern Appalachian
environments.
Since this first selected region opened to traffic, parkway
visitation has increased dramatically from 101,324 in 1939 to
17,889,335 in 1993--highest visited among all of the 359 parks of the
National Park System--even higher than the Grand Canyon National Park,
the Statue of Liberty National Monument, and Yellowstone National Park.
Despite the complexities of design, construction, development, and
operation, plus its ever-increasing popularity, the parkway has not had
a permanent headquarters in more than a half-century as a unit of the
National Park System. Ironically, although it is almost exclusively
rural in nature, the parkway's ``temporary'' headquarters have always
been located in the heart of urban areas.
After almost four decades in rented office space in Roanoke, VA,
headquarters were moved to Asheville, NC in 1972. The reasons for the
move were twofold: No. 1, a realignment of the National Park Service
excluded Virginia from the Southeast Region, and No. 2, Asheville was a
more central location in a now-dormant proposal to extend the parkway
to near Marietta, GA.
Since its move in 1972, the Parkway Headquarters have been located in
what now is the BB&T Building in downtown Asheville. Some 8,100 square
feet of office space is leased at an annual cost of approximately
$85,000. The present lease expires in 1994.
Development of a permanent facility in the Asheville area would
eliminate the expense of this lease arrangement, and, more importantly,
would accomplish one of the parkway's major objectives. This objective
is to:
Construct a permanent headquarters/interpretive/archival
complex on Parkway lands in order for management to be more
accessible and responsive to Parkway visitors and employees.
The Federal Government has already purchased a tract of land,
totaling 90 acres, in Asheville and has invested money for planning as
well. It would make common sense financially to go ahead and fulfill
the investment obligations and build the center in Asheville.
Representative Charles Taylor confirmed to me that the House had
passed the House Interior Appropriations bill which included $910,000
to start construction of the Parkway Headquarters and Visitor's Center
at Hemphill Knob, near Asheville. However, in the Senate bill, this
funding was not provided.
It is my intention to request that during conference, my
distinguished colleagues on this committee consider this request of
$910,000 to begin construction of these headquarters.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from
North Carolina for alerting me of this situation. In response to my
colleague's request, I will try to take this matter into consideration
during conference.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senator indicated, this project is in
the House bill and will have to be discussed during our conference.
While no commitment can be made, I will keep the interest of the junior
Senator from North Carolina in mind.
land exchange pilot project
Mr. HATFIELD. As the chairman knows, the land ownership in the
Western States is fragmented. Because Federal, State, county, and
private lands are intermingled across watersheds and ecosystems,
extensive cooperation is required to manage these lands under an
ecosystem approach.
A pilot project proposal has been brought to my attention which would
address the cross-ownership ecosystem management problem by
cooperatively identifying environmentally sensitive private lands which
would be exchanged for less critical Federal lands on a voluntary
basis. The project would test an alternative approach and would involve
citizens, landowners, local governments, environmental groups, and
Federal agencies in Douglas County, OR. Is it the chairman's
understanding that a pilot land exchange project might qualify for a
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant?
Mr. BYRD. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds, which are
provided in this bill, are available for grants through a competitive
application process. The grants are used for fish and wildlife and
research demonstration projects and require matching funds. The
committee has no say in the projects ultimately selected for funding by
the Foundation. Project grant decisions are to be based on merit. If
this project is submitted by its supporters to the Foundation, it
should be considered on the same basis as any other projects proposed
for grant funding. The same criteria should be used for all applicants.
Mr. HATFIELD. It is my understanding that the matching funds
requirement can be met. If a proposal of the kind just described is
made to the Foundation, I would urge the foundation to seriously
consider the project for funding.
indian school equalization program
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, despite severe spending constraints, the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has once again
led the committee in providing funding for programs that take into
account the real needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. I
commend Chairman Byrd for his leadership once again.
However, the committee included bill language relating to the counts
of students attending Bureau of Indian Affairs schools that I would
hope would be deleted at such a time as this bill goes to conference.
The Committee on Appropriations sought to accommodate the
recommendation of the Committee on Indian Affairs on this matter, but
the bill language that is included will, I fear, result in underfunding
of Bureau of Indian Affairs schools in the coming year.
To clarify, I need to begin with existing law. Appropriations for the
operation of Bureau schools are currently distributed on the basis of
the number of students attending each school and the special
characteristics of each student. The count of students is taken the
last week of September, and on that basis, an upward or downward
adjustment is made to the allocation of funds made earlier to each
school.
In its proposed budget for fiscal year 1995, the Bureau proposed that
it be authorized to use the prior year's count of students, with
adjustments made only for enrollment increases over the prior year that
exceed 10 percent. The Bureau made the proposal despite the act that
when it consulted with Indian educators, 70 percent said they opposed
the proposed change.
The language included in the bill permits, but does not require, the
Bureau to use prior year counts. The concern of the Committee on Indian
Affairs is that since the Bureau itself proposed the change, it will--
if granted permission to do so--use the prior year's student count.
Mr. BYRD. I share the concerns of the chairman of the Committee on
Indian Affairs about how funds for BIA-funded education are
distributed. As the chairman has noted, the language which has been
included in the bill does not require the Bureau to use prior year
counts. Because of the concerns of the Committee on Indian Affairs and
the concerns raised during the consultation process, language has been
included in the Senate report which clearly requires the Secretary of
Interior to consult with the tribes to develop a methodology for
distributing funds. Language has also been included in the report which
would require the Department to submit a workplan on how the Secretary
will conduct the consultation. This language was included to assure
that the consultation is conducted in a manner that will ensure that
tribes and schools have an opportunity to propose alternatives to the
current methodology.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Bureau estimates an overall increase
of about 4 percent in its student count in September 1995. If the
increase were evenly distributed, and the Bureau implemented its
proposal, none of the schools would be allowed added funding
appropriated by the Congress. Even those schools experiencing 5, 6, 7,
8, or 9 percent increases in their enrollments would have to get by
with a budget based on the preceding year's enrollment. In the small
schools of the Bureau's system, such a shortfall could be especially
harmful to educational programs.
Mr. BYRD. When the bill language was included in the Senate report,
the Committee assumed no particular methodology, as indicated in the
report. In other words, the committee did not endorse the methodology
proposed by BIA. The Secretary of Interior should consult with the
tribes on how to implement the use of prior year enrollment in
distributing the funds. However, if no consensus occurs on what
methodology should be used or if the tribes do not want to use prior
year enrollment, it is assumed that the current count week would
continue to be the methodology used by the Bureau. Given the widespread
reports of problems associated with the current count week, it is my
hope that an improved and fairer methodology would emerge from the
consultation process.
Mr. INOUYE. The Committee on Indian Affairs shares the concern you
have described. It is for that reason that the committee has approved
and will soon be recommending to the Senate an amendment to the
Improving America's Schools Act that will require the Secretary of
Interior to contract with an organization or institution having
expertise in school finance to conduct a two-part study of the issues.
The first part of the study will be analysis of what level of funding
will be required to conduct a school program that meets academic
standards of the Bureau; the second part of the study will be an
evaluation of the Indian School Equalization Program and a
consideration of alternative approaches to providing basic funding for
the Bureau schools. Under the amendment, the Secretary will choose a
contractor only after the Department has conducted a wide solicitation
among organizations and institutions having expertise in school
finance.
Mr. President, given that the study is to be completed in 6 months,
the Committee on Indian Affairs is of the view that any change such as
contemplated in the Senate bill should await the completion of the
studies and analysis I have described.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the efforts of the Committee on Indian Affairs
to examine the Indian School Equalization Program and support examining
alternative approaches to providing basic funding for the Bureau
schools. However, I am concerned about the portion of the study that
will analyze the level of funding required to conduct a school program
which meets academic standards of the Bureau. I share the concerns of
the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs that bureau of Indian
Affairs schools be adequately funded, and as a result, the committee
has provided significant increases in appropriations for Bureau schools
over the past few years. Given the caps in discretionary spending that
the committee faces over the next few years, it is unlikely that the
committee will be able to provide significant increases in the future,
regardless of the conclusions reached by the study. Any study on the
level of funding required for BIA schools should address ways to
utilize better existing funding and ensure that funds are distributed
in the most effective manner in light of the very real constraints
faced by every program funded through the Interior bill.
Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
that the constraints on spending compel the Bureau and other agencies,
of course, to seek to ensure that appropriations are efficiently and
effectively employed to accomplish their missions. But we cannot expect
accomplishment if the Congress appropriates less than independent
school experts determine will be required for the conduct of programs.
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his
consideration of the issues we have discussed and for his consideration
of my views on the student count language at such time as the
appropriations conferees meet to consider H.R. 4602.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the concerns and efforts of the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and will take them into
consideration when the conferees meet.
office of territories and international affairs
Mr. JOHNSTON. I draw the attention of the distinguished floor
managers to the third paragraph on page 65 of the committee's report,
Rpt. 103-294, which recommends $27,720,000 for construction grants for
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. As the report
points out, this is consistent with the amount required by section 702
of the existing authorization (P.L. 94-241; 90 Stat. 263). The report
language also states ``The Committee has no objection to the use of
$2,500,000 within the funds provided to address the costs associated
with immigration to the Northern Mariana Islands as a result of
implementation of the Compact of Free Association.''
For the reasons I will enumerate below, it is my hope that through
this colloquy the Senate, with the support of the floor managers, will
also take the position that within the funds provided, the Secretary of
the Interior shall take appropriate actions to allocate $7 million for
providing technical and other assistance to the CNMI to help track and
identify alien workers entering the CNMI, to enforce applicable
immigration laws in the CNMI, and to provide technical assistance to
the CNMI in developing related labor rules and regulations for alien
workers. Specifically, these funds shall be used, with the assistance
of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, to develop a
computer data base and identification system for aliens present in and
entering the CNMI, including a permanent record of country of origin of
these aliens. The funds should also be used for necessary planning,
including architectural and engineering work, for the construction of
detention facilities which meet applicable Federal standards and
requirements for aliens who enter illegally or whose presence is
otherwise not in conformance with appropriate immigration laws and
policy in consultation with the U.S. Justice Department and other
agencies deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
This allocation leaves $18 million available for capital improvement
projects to be undertaken by the CNMI Government, subject to the CNMI
Government providing appropriate matching funds as determined by the
Secretary. This amount is consistent with the budget request, and
leaves in place the committee's directive that all capital improvement
funding be subject to applicable Federal grant regulations.
I am not proposing that foreign workers who have entered the CNMI
legally and who remain legally employed be expelled from the CNMI. Nor
am I proposing that the United States Government take over immigration
duties, or that all future immigration to the CNMI be stopped. I do
believe however that the CNMI needs to be given the necessary
resources, including technical assistance from the INS, the Justice
Department, and the Department of Labor to assure that applicable laws
are followed and enforced, and that those foreign workers who enter and
are present in the CNMI can be properly identified and accounted for
and that those present illegally or who are in violation of other
applicable Federal laws and policies can be deported.
The CNMI has experienced a population explosion since 1980,
registering growth of some 250 percent in full-time residents. Much of
this growth is attributable to the increase of nonresident aliens, most
of whom are believed to have immigrated from areas in the Pacific and
Asia other than the former Trust Territory. In 1980, CNMI natives and
indigenous peoples constituted 66.6 percent of the population of the
CNMI, with full-time aliens, excluding immigrants from areas of the
former Trust Territory, constituting just over 12 percent of the
population. Immigrants from other Pacific Islands, primarily other
parts of the former Trust Territory, constituted about 8.9 percent of
the population of the CNMI. By 1993, CNMI natives and indigenous
peoples constituted 36.5 percent of the CNMI population, and
nonresident aliens, including immigrants from areas of the former Trust
Territory, constituted 43 percent of the total population of the CNMI.
Pacific Islanders, while increased in raw numbers, constituted just
under 7.5 percent of the population of the CNMI. In numbers, estimates
are that full-time nonresident aliens, primarily contract workers,
immigrating from areas other than the former Trust Territory increased
from about 2,100 in 1980 to over 24,800 by 1993, averaging an increase
of over 20 percent each year. Registered births to these aliens
totalled over 3,000 in 1993, compared to 50 in 1986, and exceeded the
number of registered birth to indigenous residents.
The United States has a strong Federal interest in seeing that an
identification and tracking system is in place and that appropriate
laws are followed. Most important, for the purposes of citizenship, the
territory of the CNMI is considered U.S. territory. Thus, children born
to foreign workers in the CNMI receive U.S. citizenship just as they
could if they were born in Los Angeles or New Orleans or New York.
These children are entitled to the same benefits and programs that
other children having U.S. citizenship in the CNMI receive. Many of
these programs and benefits are funded by the Federal Government.
Second, part of the stress on infrastructure in the CNMI, which is in
part supported by the federally funded capital improvement program, is
attributable to the huge increase in the number of full-time alien
residents in the CNMI.
Finally, to assure the safety and welfare of all U.S. citizens in the
CNMI, the Federal Government has a strong interest in knowing who these
foreign workers are and making sure that applicable U.S. policies with
respect to the entry of these foreign workers are enforced.
The purpose of section 702 of the Covenant, enacted in 1976, was to
help the CNMI develop needed infrastructure and economic resources to
become self reliant. This section authorized the appropriation of $192
million over a 7-year period, 1978 to 1985, for this purpose. At the
end of this period, an agreement was reached to provide an additional
grant totaling $228 million over a second 7-year period, 1986 to 1992.
This second 7-year agreement provided that the CNMI would continue to
receive $27.7 million in the eighth year and beyond for capital
improvement projects until Congress otherwise provided. In 1992, a
third agreement was reached to provide $120 million over a third 7-year
period, 1993 to 1999, subject to a phased matching requirement.
For a number of reasons, this agreement was never approved by the
Congress, leaving in place the mandatory provision of $27.7 million
annually for capital improvement construction grants for the CNMI.
Accordingly in fiscal year 1993, $27.7 million was provided for this
purpose. In fiscal year 1994, an additional $27.7 million was provided,
with the understanding that $3 million would be used for construction
of a memorial in the American Memorial Park on Saipan, consistent with
commitments the U.S. Government made to construct this memorial in the
Covenant.
In 1993 and 1994, in response to the controversy surrounding the
third extension of the 702 grant program, the current administration
proposed that in addition to the amounts already received in fiscal
years 1993 and 1994, the Federal Government provide the CNMI $18
million in fiscal year 1995, and $9 million in fiscal year 1996, which
would make available over $80 million for the third round of capital
construction projects.
There is no question that needs for improvement in the physical
infrastructure of the CNMI remain, particularly in the areas of clean
water, adequate sewer treatment, and adequate schools. Rapid economic
development coupled with rapid population growth have increased
pressures on the existing systems. As set forth in the most recent
State of the Territories report, for example, school enrollment in
grades K through 7 in the early 1980's was approximately 5,500; that
has almost doubled today. Just since 1988, elementary and secondary
school enrollment has mushroomed from under 7,400 to over 10,500 in
1993.
The economy has also grown at a rapid pace. Tourism has continued to
grow. In 1980, there were about 110,300 visitors to the CNMI and
altogether 802 hotels rooms, 710 of which were on Saipan. In 1993, over
535,000 visitors entered the CNMI, which now has over 3,300 hotel
rooms. Projections are that tourist entries may reach 800,000 annually
by the year 2000 if an additional 2,000 hotel rooms can be provided to
accommodate the increase.
Both of these factors, economic growth centered on tourism and
population growth, have placed strains on existing infrastructure. It
is my opinion that there is a need for some additional Federal
assistance to help meet these needs; however, I also believe that the
local government can make more of a contribution than it has in the
past. Local revenues have increased dramatically--from about $10
million in 1980 to over $150 million in 1992. I recognize that the pace
of economic development has created jobs outnumbering the available
local labor pool, necessitating the use of foreign workers to sustain
growth, particularly in certain sectors such as tourism, construction,
and the garment manufacturing industry. The presence of foreign workers
however is not totally beneficial to the economy. Most of these workers
receive below minimum wage salaries and pay little into the system to
balance the cost they have imposed on infrastructure and social
services. Indeed, one preliminary study indicates that nonresident
aliens impose a net cost to the economy starting at about $570 per
capita annually and could be higher in some cases.
Thus, if we are to provide additional Federal assistance to help
improve the infrastructure of the CNMI, then I believe we must also
take steps to mitigate the negative impact of nonresident aliens in the
CNMI. I am told that one of the most serious problems encountered in
attempting to assure compliance with immigration laws is that, once a
foreign worker enters the CNMI, he or she loses or destroys papers
indicating country of origin. Without proof of country of origin, it is
impossible for officials to repatriate these foreign workers to their
home countries when their visas expire. Even if officials are able to
identify a person picked up as a foreign worker, few detentions occur
for the reason that no facility is currently on island which meets
Federal standards.
The purpose of this additional understanding I am proposing is to
tackle these problems head-on, by providing the necessary resources for
the Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as the U.S.
Department of Justice to assist the CNMI in keeping track of foreign
workers who enter the CNMI so that those workers who overstay their
visas or otherwise violate the terms of their visas can be returned to
their countries of origin, and to provide for adequate facilities to
detain foreign workers who violate the system until they can receive
the required hearing.
I remain willing to ask the Federal taxpayer to help the CNMI provide
infrastructure and services for those who are U.S. citizens and
otherwise legally are in the CNMI. However, I do not believe the
Federal taxpayer should be asked to help improve the infrastructure or
provide services for those who are there illegally. This problem will
only compound itself in the future if we do not take steps now to
correct this situation. I believe this understanding will help
accomplish this goal, and I hope that the administration will take
steps to include resources to continue this effort in the fiscal year
1996 and future budgets.
Mr. AKAKA. I concur with the remarks of the senior Senator from
Louisiana with whom I have worked on this particular issue for many
years. I share his concern about developing a positive and reasoned
response to continuing problems with respect to foreign workers in the
CNMI and believe the first step is to develop a tracking and
information system. I urge the managers to support this additional
understanding.
Mr. BYRD. I believe the suggestions offered by the Senator from
Louisiana and the Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the authorizing
committee and subcommittee, respectively, are constructive. The
Senators have outlined a very serious problem which needs to be
addressed, and I believe the approach outlined is a measured response
to the problem. Therefore, on the basis of the information the Senators
have provided, I support the additional understanding they have
proposed. These modifications would still provide for an estimated $18
million for infrastructure, while also addressing issues that
contribute to the additional infrastructure requirements.
Mr. NICKLES. I join my colleague from West Virginia in endorsing this
modification to the report language, and I concur with his remarks.
energy performance contracting
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, might I address a question to the senior
Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished floor manager of this
bill?
First, I observe that the Committee recognizes the importance of
Federal leadership on energy conservation by recommending $21 million
for Federal energy management. The Federal Government is faced with
annual expenditures of $4 billion for building energy use
What is now needed is for the Federal Government to give priority to
the upgrading of Federal buildings as required by the 1992 Energy
Policy Act. By targeting Federal efforts within each region, the
Federal Government can showcase in selected cities what can be
accomplished in Federal buildings. By coordinating this Federal effort
with State and local government and the private sector, the Federal
Government can foster the development of local infrastructures that can
support the sustained installation and maintenance of building energy
conservation measures.
As the Committee expects, available Federal appropriations for this
effort can be significantly supplmeneted with private investment funds
through the use of energy service companies, utilities, and third-party
financing or secondary market financing; for example, through the
utilization of energy service companies and performance contracts
measured in accordance with a State recognized measurement protocol
equivalent to those in use in my State or New Jersey or California.
The 5-year, energy saving performance program that was authorized by
the Energy Policy Act needs to begin. However, proposed rules governing
this program were not published by the Department of Energy until April
11, 1994. Two years have already passed since enactment of this program
and we are faced with the possibility of another year passing before
these regulations are finalized. Another year before the Federal
Government can realize the resultant budget savings.
The question I like to address to the chairman of the subcommittee
is: Would the Senator agree, since this is a test program, that Federal
energy managers should, until the final rules are promulgated, be
allowed to proceed under DOE's proposed energy savings performance
contract rules?
Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that Federal
building managers should be permitted to proceed with this test program
under the April 11 proposed regulation until the current rule making is
finalized.
Indoor Air Quality Program
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would like to seek to clarify a point with the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It has come to
my attention that a small but important program within the U.S.
Department of Energy, related to indoor air quality, was not funded in
this bill, perhaps due to a concern that it duplicated other Federal
programs. The DOE program on indoor air quality, though, is unique in
both its objectives and the activities which it supports. For example,
while other Federal programs focus on disseminating best available
technology for indoor air quality, the DOE program is focused on
achieving a more fundamental understanding of indoor air quality issues
that would lead to new and perhaps revolutionary technological
approaches. I believe that it should be retained at the modest level
requested by the administration--$1.875 million--for three reasons.
First, as I have already mentioned, it is distinct from, yet
complementary to other existing programs on indoor air quality. Second,
the fundamental insights into indoor air quality obtained by this
program have, in the past, provided an effective technical sanity check
on various proposals that have been advanced to improve air quality in
buildings. Finally, maintaining acceptable indoor air quality will be
the major challenge to achieving greater building energy efficiency. It
is worth remembering that 38 percent of the energy consumed in this
country is used in buildings. Some 5.5 quads of energy are consumed
each year in air handling and conditioning. Continued fundamental
exploration of indoor air quality issues by this program is likely to
continue to provide new solutions to this important energy efficiency
challenge.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for his
views on this matter. Since the House bill provides funding for this
program within the Department of Energy, I would like to give the
distinguished Senator my assurance that I will address his concern in
conference discussions with our counterparts in the House.
arts endowment
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to make an inquiry of the
Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee and the distinguished chairman of the Interior
Subcommittee. I understand that the chairman of the Arts Endowment,
Jane Alexander, has informed him of the efforts she has undertaken to
improve the processes and procedures at the endowment.
I believe that Chairman Alexander is doing an outstanding job and
that we should give her the opportunity to establish guidelines that
strike an appropriate balance between free expression and
accountability.
I hope that these efforts by Chairman Alexander are persuasive for
the Senator from West Virginia and that he will keep them in mind
during the House-Senate conference on this bill.
I would also hope that, whatever the ultimate funding level for the
arts endowment, Chairman Alexander will be given the discretion to
allocate the reductions herself.
As the Senator from West Virginia may know, the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources will be reauthorizing the arts endowment next year,
and we look forward to examining all of these issues.
I have received a letter from Chairman Alexander and I respect the
plans she has outlined for the endowment. I commend these efforts and
will keep an open mind in conference with respect to the ultimate
funding level for the endowment and the allocation of reductions.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his comments. I
acknowledge his leadership in our national cultural policy and very
much appreciate his comments.
I have met with Jane Alexander and believe she is interested in
ensuring that the endowments funds art which is excellent and with
merit. I understand the issues that the Senator raises regarding the
need to permit Chairman Alexander an opportunity to establish
appropriate guidelines at her agency, particularly in light of the
upcoming reauthorization process.
forest service reorganization
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to bring the Senate's attention to
an opportunity to save money, ease bureaucratic burdens, and improve
service in the Forest Service. For several years now my ranking
colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and I
have been considering the role of regional offices in the Forest
Service.
Since 1974, the Interior appropriations bill has included language
that prohibits the Secretary from closing regional offices or changing
regional boundaries without congressional consent. This language was
inserted at a time when President Nixon proposed 10 standardized
regions for all agencies. Senators Mansfield and Bible thought that the
Forest Service was best served by keeping the regional offices in the
railroad towns where they were. Their language has persisted to this
day--it is 20 years old.
We had an opportunity to delete this language in S. 1970, the USDA
Reorganization Act of 1994, but the Senate deferred at the request of
the administration. Instead, the Senate adopted language that required
nonbinding proposals from the Secretary to address a number of
administrative issues, including office structure.
I understand that the Forest Service's reinvention process is taking
its course, and an interim report has laid out academic models that
give some indication of the Forest Service's progress to date. It is
still unclear what form the final proposals will take, how the Forest
Service intends to implement the proposals, and what role the Forest
Service foresees for Congress.
The current language in this appropriations bill guarantees that
Congress will have a role. Furthermore, judging from committee action
on Bureau of Mines closures and Agricultural Research Facility
closures, Congress will play an active role.
The Forest Service must be ready for the 21st century--an era when
more people will demand more from an agency limited by finite
resources. With this in mind, I would like the Forest Service to
consider cost saving opportunities at the forest level, the district
level and the Washington office level as well. The organization must
pursue the most efficient organizational structure it can identify.
In order to make office closure recommendations politically viable,
we could consider an approach similar to the Commission on Agricultural
Research Facilities authorized in the 1990 farm bill. This process was
set up to take no more than 240 days from the date of authorization.
Alternatively, we could consider a more comprehensive strategy similar
to the military base closing scheme. I am most interested in something
that is responsible and realistic.
In this respect, I wish to highlight my interest in receiving from
the Forest Service for fiscal year 1996 a politically viable and
administratively sound plan for downsizing, restructuring, or
reorganizing the organization. The March 31, 1995 deadline included in
S. 1970 should provide sufficient time for the Forest Service.
I will not offer an amendment providing specific direction at this
time, but I urge the administration to consider alternatives and
present them to Congress for fiscal year 1996.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for Vermont for bringing this to our
attention. I share the Senator's interest in reorganizing the
administrative structure of the Forest Service. The subcommittee's
allocation continues to erode and yet the demand for services
increases. We must eliminate inefficiencies and streamline operations
in order to get the most from Federal agencies during tight budget
times.
As we have seen in the Department of Interior's effort to close some
Bureau of Mines offices, and in the Department of Agriculture's effort
to close some agricultural research facilities, office closures can not
be done in a piecemeal fashion. A politically viable plan must be a
comprehensive plan that justifies to Senators the decisions made. It
must also take into consideration the changing roles of some of the
other players in the Federal family when it comes to natural resource
issues.
Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman on this point, and I would
like to offer two other suggestions. I hope that the Forest Service
looks beyond the National Forest System, and considers the field
structure of research and other facilities. The roles of other branches
of the Forest Service are also changing.
Second, I ask that the Forest Service work cooperatively with the
Department of the Interior to identify possibilities where the Bureau
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service and other Federal agencies can collocate to share resources and
save money. The administration has made a concerted effort to
coordinate Federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest, and I believe
similar efforts could result in cost-savings throughout the country.
The chairman and Senator from Vermont raise a good issue about
pursuing these changes comprehensively. The subcommittee currently has
four members who have regional Forest Service offices in their States.
The full committee has six members with regional offices in their
State. Several other Senators share a strong interest in this issue,
particularly because the regional offices are an important source of
jobs and revenue for their constituents. A strategy must account for
political realities of the task before us.
We will not be able to achieve the savings that this subcommittee
needs to find if we continue with the existing Forest Service
structure. Furthermore, we may not serve the Forest Service well if
office closures are based on politics alone. I share the other concerns
mentioned by the chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee and the chairman of Appropriations and look forward to
working with them.
Mr. LUGAR. I requested that the Forest Service examine this issue
three years ago. A report was produced describing a variety of
different proposals which have not been implemented to date. The
Agriculture Committee spared mandatory direction for the Forest Service
in S. 1970 because of the President had designated the Forest Service
to be a laboratory for reinvention. It is critical that this effort
produce concrete results that the administration and Congress can
implement collectively and effectively.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman of Appropriations and the ranking
members from both Appropriations and Agriculture for raising these
issues with me. The ranking member of Interior Appropriations raises a
good point with other field structures. The State and Private Forestry
Programs will have increasingly important roles, and I am firmly
committed to making sure the Forest Service supports these programs
effectively where they are needed most. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to find solutions.
west greenland salmon fishery buy-out
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, The United States has spent millions of
dollars on efforts to restore salmon populations in the Northeast. I
have worked hard to build the White River National Fish Hatcher in
Bethel, to protect the upland spawning grounds, to improve fish passage
facilities, and to enhance the water quality in the Connecticut River.
Unfortunately, there is still a petition to list the Atlantic salmon
as an endangered species. There has been a missing link in our
investment, and now we have a chance to fix it. The project initiated
by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation and supported by the State
Department, the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, the Atlantic Salmon
Federation, and other sources, is one of the best investments we can
make to bring back New England's wild salmon fishery.
I sincerely appreciate the chairman and ranking members' flexibility
and receptiveness in considering the amendment that Senator Lieberman
and I have proposed. I know that this is a good investment, and I am
confident that all of the current and past partners will remain active
and supportive in this effort.
Mr. BYRD. I want to emphasize this point that my colleague makes. It
is critical that this project pursue outside funding sources to the
extent possible to support the buy-out.
I also want to make sure that the Department of State maintains its
responsibility to the success of this program. In addition, the
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has jurisdiction in this issue and a clear
responsibility to get actively involved. Finally, the Department of
State has a responsibility to evaluate the success of this program and
plan for the long-term vitality of the Northeast salmon fishery.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I share the concerns raised by the distinguished
chairman of Appropriations, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
this project with him.
The Secretary of the Interior has made a pledge to ``get in front of
the curve'' and act proactively through the Endangered Species Act to
avoid trainwrecks. The West Greenland salmon buy-out does exactly
this--and in the ominous shadow of a petition to list this species in
New England.
I want to mention, however, that there is clearly a limit to what
Congress, and therefore the Secretary of Interior, can do within
budgetary constraints. We must be careful in what we promise from the
Federal treasury, and creative in the ways that we go about the
business of species protection. The amendment assures that the buy-out
will happen and provides some flexibility for how it is carried out.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senators from Vermont and Connecticut have worked
hard to protect and revive the salmon fishery, and I appreciate their
dedication. In accepting this amendment, I want to mention the initial
direction provided by the subcommittee in the committee report
regarding outside sources. The chairman of the subcommittee has spoken
well to the need to seek non-federal funding.
While the amendment authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to
support the Greenland salmon fishery buy-out, it is my understanding
that the arrangement worked out here is a one-time fix.
transportation feasibility study
Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oklahoma. I understand
that the Appropriations Committee has provided $21,050,000 for
construction planning as stated on page 39 of the committee report. Do
the Senators from West Virginia and Oklahoma concur that the National
Park Service shall fund a transportation feasibility study at $50,000
and a development concept plan at $25,000 for the Oneida & Western
Railroad Corridor in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation
Area to be funded by the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to the use of $75,000
within the funds appropriated for Park Service planning for the
aforementioned studies. It is my understanding that the Park Service
has indicated it will defer action on a decision about the use of this
railroad corridor while these studies are being conducted and until
some recommendations can be made.
Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's comments.
Mr. MATHEWS. I thank the chairman and ranking member. This funding
will allow the National Park Service to keep the current Oneida &
Western Railroad Corridor open while studies are completed on access
alternatives for the mobility impaired thereby providing a solution to
a problem in the Big South Fork NRRA without proposing the more
restrictive burden of a legislative solution. Ensuring that this road
is not closed until alternate means of access are established is of
great importance to the elderly and mobility impaired. This road is
their only means of getting into the gorge area which is one of the
most beautiful spots in the State of Tennessee and a popular tourist
attraction. By engaging in this colloquy my colleagues have provided a
great service for the people of Tennessee.
LIGHTING OF THE DAVID BERGER NATIONAL MEMORIAL
Mr. METZENBAUM. I would like to ask the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee if he would yield for the purpose of a brief
colloquy.
Mr. BYRD. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Almost 22 years ago, 11 Israeli athletes lost their
lives at the Olympics in Munich during an attack by PLO terrorists. One
of those athletes was a young weightlifter named David Berger who
maintained dual American-Israeli citizenship.
A memorial in honor of David and the fallen athletes was erected in
front of the Mayfield Jewish Community Center in Cleveland Heights, OH.
It is a powerful tribute to their memory and the sacrifice they made in
the spirit of international sportsmanship. In 1980, Congress designated
the memorial a national memorial and placed it under the jurisdiction
of the National Park Service.
The memorial needs construction funds to complete plans to light the
memorial at night. Would the chairman agree that the National Park
Service should provide obligated funds for construction for this
purpose.
Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator from Ohio know how much is needed to
complete the project?
Mr. METZENBAUM. It is my understanding that the cost of completing
the project would not exceed $10,000.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, would the Senator from West Virginia
yield so that I may ask the Senator from Ohio a question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Would this project create recurring obligations?
Mr. METZENBAUM. No. The costs to complete the lighting project are
limited to a one-time allocation.
Mr. BYRD. I would agree with the Senator from Ohio that the National
Park Service should provide a one time allocation from unobligated
construction funds for the purpose of lighting the David Berger
National Memorial in Ohio.
Mr. NICKLES. I agree with the comments of the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, the Senator from West Virginia.
hudson-mohawk urban cultural park
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to ask if I might engage in a
colloquy with my friend from West Virginia and the manager of this bill
on a wonderful area we have in New York just north of Albany. It is the
Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park, or RiverSpark as it is known.
Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to do so with the distinguished Senator
from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend. RiverSpark is a collection of
historically and culturally significant areas in six communities:
Cohoes, Troy, Watervliet, Green Island, and the Town and Village of
Waterford. They are located on the Hudson River, and formed one of the
earliest centers of the Industrial Revolution. Iron and textiles were
the major industries in this area blessed with resources, hydropower,
and transportation access. Today visitors can see the restored Harmony
Mills building with its two massive turbines, worker housing, Waterford
Lock 2 on the Erie Canal, the Watervliet Arsenal, in operation since
1813, and other attractions and museums.
In 1991, Congressman McNulty from the Albany district and I
introduced legislation that authorized a study by the Department of the
Interior of nationally significant places in American labor history. It
became Public Law 102-101. When complete, the study will show us which
sites deserve designation as national historic or heritage landmarks.
As a result of the study two sites in RiverSpark are to be nominated
as national heritage landmarks: Harmony Mills and the home of Kate
Mullaney, who founded the first women's union in the country--of collar
and laundry workers.
The next step in RiverSpark is the development of these and other
sites, the development of educational programs and materials, and
planning how to spread the word about this wonderful urban park and
attract visitors. I am asked to help provide $75,000 for this purpose.
Mr. President, I understand that there is no room left in the Senate
bill to provide funds for RiverSpark, but I wonder if when the chairman
goes to conference he might consider funds from the statutory aid
account or another source that might become available in the course of
his deliberations. The area is truly a national resource for those who
want to learn about the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the labor
movement.
Mr. D'AMATO. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would be happy to yield to my friend and colleague.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend, the senior Senator, for yielding and
I join in his praise of this unique area. As usual, he has succinctly
stated the need for this small amount of funding for RiverSpark--a
cultural gem on the banks of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers.
Unfortunately, as you know, there is not enough money in this funding
cycle to promote the important activities of this park. However, we
remain hopeful that the distinguished chairman will put in a good word
for RiverSpark when this bill goes to conference.
Mr. BYRD. I say to my colleagues from New York that in conference I
will keep this effort in mind.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
GIFFORD PINCHOT NF LAND ACQUISITION
Mrs. MURRAY. I commend the Chairman once again for the excellent
work he has done in leading the committee, and the Senate, through a
challenging process. He and his staff have done an outstanding job
providing resources to key programs while balancing severe budgetary
constraints. I am particularly appreciative that some very important
land acquisition projects have been funded in the bill.
There is one project, however, that came up very recently; in fact,
too late to be considered by the committee. The Mt. St. Helens National
Volcanic Monument is located in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
This monument was established as a living laboratory for people to
monitor the recovery of nature following a catastrophic volcanic
eruption. There is but one inholding remaining within the monument. The
owners of this land, located near the Toutle River on the monument's
west side, have secured logging permits to harvest its timber. At the
last minute, the Forest Service and some local conservationists have
approached the owners about the possibility of selling the land.
The owners have expressed interest. In fact, a tentative purchase
agreement is in place. It is possible this acquisition could be
undertaken for a relatively modest sum. While it has not been addressed
in either the House or Senate bills, I am interested in working with
the chairman and the other conferees to see if we can include language
in the statement of managers encouraging the Forest Service to use its
emergencies and inholdings account to address this issue. Would the
chairman be willing to work with me to consider whether such an
accommodation can be worked out in conference?
Mr. BYRD. The financial constraints we face this year are very real
indeed, as I have endeavored to point out to my colleagues. If the
situation is truly urgent, and if an agreement is reached with the
property owners, I believe the emergencies/in-holdings account would be
the appropriate manner in which to address this issue. With this in
mind, I will be happy to work with the Senator from Washington to
accommodate her interests in the Statement of Managers.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished chairman for his
consideration, and look forward to working with him.
mount st. helens national volcanic monument
Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to thank the chairman again for his
assistance in creating this amendment to help ensure completion of the
Johnston Ridge Observatory. This is very important to people in Cowlitz
County, WA, and will help make Mount St. Helens the world-class
ecological exhibit we have always envisioned.
At this time, I would like to clarify with the chairman the actual
effect of my amendment. Essentially, it shifts $1,474,000 out the
recreation roads construction account into the recreation facilities
construction account. In so doing, it provides $2,403,000 to complete
construction of the Johnston Ridge Observatory, and $1,773,000 to
construct road and parking facilities necessary for public access and
use of the observatory.
Does the chairman concur in this interpretation?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator for Washington is correct. Her amendment
provides funds for completion of Johnston Ridge Observatory and
associated roads at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument as she
has described.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman.
land acquisition in wyoming
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee yield for the purpose of a brief colloquy?
Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman. I wish to engage the distinguished
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee in discussion
regarding appropriations for land acquisitions in Wyoming.
For many years now, the U.S. Forest Service regional offices
responsible for managing the Federal forest of Wyoming have presented
the administration with a priority request for land acquisition
funding. Until the fiscal year 1995 request was made, the regional
priority--and we have two regions in Wyoming--has been to acquire
scenic easements in a most unique area of Wyoming, known as Buffalo
Valley.
Mr. President, Buffalo Valley lies at the entrance to both Grand
Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park, which, as the
chairman knows, is our country's very first national park. The area is
a unique treasure and, because of the recognized beauty and the visual
resources of the area, there is tremendous pressure to develop vacation
homes, condominiums, and the like.
These national parks are located in Teton County, WY. Only 3 percent
of that county is private land. There is little left to develop other
than the few private ranches that remain.
Buffalo Valley is bordered by wilderness areas, national forest, and
national park land. One of the few remaining large inholdings in that
area is the Fuez Ranch, and it lies in the middle of Buffalo Valley. It
is not only splendid ranching property, but has a unique view of the
Grand Tetons, and is a focal point of development pressure. This ranch
has been approved for subdivision development. The owner, however, is
willing to forgo development if the Federal Government will provide
funding to acquire scenic easements.
The Federal Government now has a rare opportunity to acquire an
interest in this property--a scenic easement--which will forever
protect the aesthetic quality of that national treasure. Time has run
out; unfortunately, there were always too many other conflicting needs
to allow full funding for this proposal in past years to delay
development growth. Now, it is my understanding there is still a great
likelihood we will lose a valuable opportunity to protect this resource
if the Government does not act in the coming fiscal year.
Mr. President, I am informed that there is a fund available to
the Forest Service, the Emergency Inholdings Account, which--although
limited--would provide the administration with funds to acquire
inholdings and property interests on an ``opportunity'' basis.
I would ask the chairman whether such a fund might be an appropriate
source to obtain some funds to protect Buffalo Valley before
development pressures take control of events?
Mr. BYRD. That account may very well be an appropriate source for
funding.
Mr. NICKLES. I would inform the Senator from Wyoming that I, too,
believe that may be an appropriate source of funding for the
acquisition described by the Senator.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman. And I thank our distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Nickles.
I would respectfully ask both our distinguished chairman and our
ranking member if they would be willing to work with me, this
administration, and the U.S. Forest Service in order to see if we can
properly acquire funding for this very important Wyoming resource.
Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to work with the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Wyoming can be assured of my assistance
as well.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman, Senator Byrd, and our
distinguished subcommittee ranking member, Senator Nickles, for their
courtesy. Their support is most welcome and I do thank them.
I yield the floor.
forest service
Mr. WALLOP. Page 7 of the committee report includes some limitations
on the Forest Service. It specifically prohibits the Forest Service
from changing the boundaries of any region, moving or closing any
regional office for research, State and private forestry, or National
Forest System administration without the consent of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Senate and House Committees
on Agriculture. I assume the committee inadvertently forgot to include
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Under the Senate
rules, the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction over forest
reserves and wilderness areas other than those created from the public
domain. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction
over public lands and forests. Any such proposal from the Forest
Service should be referred to both authorizing committees. Again, I
assume that this was an inadvertent oversight and I would ask whether
the chairman and ranking member could assure me that the statement of
managers on the conference report will correct this oversight.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the Senator bringing this matter to our
attention. There was no intention to affect any committee jurisdiction
and we will see that all appropriate authorizing committees are
notified of any such proposal and we will attempt to see that the
statement of managers correctly reflects this.
Mr. NICKLES. I agree. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
should have been mentioned.
acid mine drainage
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and
other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for including
language in the report on Interior and Related Agencies which states
that while the committee continues to provide funding for research and
development of acid mine drainage treatment and abatement techniques,
the committee expects that the Department will build upon this existing
body of research and seek to marshal and focus the significant existing
resources available within OSM, the Interior Department, and other
Federal and State agencies in this effort.
In this regard, the committee's point is well-placed, that is pursuit
of any new AMD initiatives, the Department will continue to recognize
the provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
[SMCRA], which provide coal producers a wide range of alternatives for
minimizing acid mine drainage, including treatment to reduce pollutants
that may be present before discharge off the mine permit area.
As ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I
believe it is imperative that the Office of Surface Mining conduct this
important effort within the statutory framework established by SMCRA
and would urge the chairman and ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee to consider affirming the language in the
Statement of Managers of the conference report.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the insightful comments of the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop]. His observations are absolutely
correct as to the importance of the Office of Surface Mining adhering
to the legislative directives of SMCRA in addressing acid mine
drainage. This is an issue which is very important to West Virginia and
the Appalachian region as a whole and could have implications for
Western States such as Wyoming as well. I will carry his thoughts and
observations into the conference with the House.
energy efficiency programs
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to enter
into this colloquy with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia,
the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. As
my colleague knows, I am deeply concerned by the committee's proposed
reductions from the President's requests for energy efficiency
programs. The President proposed an increase of $288 million in fiscal
year 1995 to implement the Energy Policy Act of 1992, various important
energy initiatives, a variety of successful programs, and the voluntary
measures under the climate change action plan. The House provided an
increase of $134 million for these accounts, but the Senate committee
was only able to provide an increase of $53 million in this important
area. In the area of the State energy programs alone, including the
State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional Conservation
Program, and the Low Income Weatherization Program, the Senate bill
would provide $264.4 million. In fiscal year 1979 these same programs
received $558 million, so that if inflation were taken into account,
the funding level would be over $1 billion today.
In light of the important national goals these programs promote,
especially the State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional
Conservation Program, the Rebuild American Program, the Home Energy
Ratings and Energy Efficient Mortgage Program, the alternative fuels
promotion activity, section 409 of the Energy Policy Act, the
Weatherization Program and the so-called nice three program; these
programs are worthy of support and the house-passed levels are
preferable.
I wish to ask my distinguished colleague whether, in light of our
mutual desire to achieve a balanced national energy policy, including
energy efficiency programs, he could work toward restoring the funding
in these programs to the House-passed levels in conference with the
House.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate by colleague's strong support for these
programs, and while I cannot make a specific commitment to fund fully
the House-passed levels for these programs which will be determined in
a House-Senate conference on this bill, I am sympathetic to this
approach and will take the Senator's concerns into consideration.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States of America uses more
energy than any other country in the world. We are the sixth most
intensive energy user on a per capita basis. This means that the United
States has to deal with serious environmental problems, national
security problems, social problems, and economic competitiveness
problems associated with energy costs. The amendment in committee that
cuts $11 million from the Department of Energy cuts into a chance to
turn some of these problems around.
One promising opportunity is the integrated resource planning [IRP]
program which helps States implement cost-effective conservation
measures to reduce demand and enhance energy supply. According to the
World Resources Institute's Environmental Almanac, Vermont earned an
IRP grade of ``A'' in a national ranking. However, Vermont still spends
$800 million a year for imported energy despite these good efforts. I
have to assume that there are many other States that lose much more
than $800 million annually from their local economies, and could put
this problem to excellent use.
The weatherization program in the DOE budget helps low-income
families stay warm in the winter--not just by paying fuel bills, but by
helping them to save energy. Rebuild America, another example of a
promising conservation program, is an umbrella program in the buildings
program area that enhances commercial and community-level energy
efficiency through local partnerships. The State Energy Conservation
Program helps businesses and industry become more competitive by
reducing energy consumption and associated costs.
The Energy Efficient Mortgage Program in this bill helps Americans
qualify for larger home mortgages if they buy an energy efficient home.
Vermont has been using this program since the early 1980's, and it is
time to get more States involved. By way of example, a family in
Burlington, VT was able to get a larger mortgage, decrease their
monthly energy costs, and save almost $100 a month. This makes
economic, social, and environmental sense.
I could list many other programs affected by the $11 million cut in
committee. I could also mention some of the 938 organizations
nationwide who have written to the President in support of these
programs. At this point, however, I simply urge my colleagues to find
out how these programs help their States and then support an increase
in conference. I hope that in conference we can restore the energy
conservation money, and hopefully settle close to the House mark.
flood relief
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I initially came to the floor to offer an
amendment to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for the
National Park Service's Historic Preservation Fund for relief to
buildings damaged in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, by the recent
floods cased by tropical storm Alberto. I, and my colleague from
Georgia, Senator Coverdell, modeled the amendment along the lines of
relief included in last year's Midwest floods supplemental
appropriations.
However, after discussion of this amendment with my distinguished
colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as the distinguished junior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], I request unanimous consent that
we be allowed to enter into a colloquy to discuss this problem and a
possible solution which could provide expedited relief for historic
preservation sites damaged by the floods resulting from tropical storm
Alberto.
I would like to direct a question to the distinguished chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators Byrd and Nickles. It is my
understanding that in February 1994, Congress made available $550
million as part of Public Law 103-211 to the President to meet
unanticipated needs resulting from the January 1994 California
earthquake, the Midwest floods, and other disasters, over $27.85
million of these funds remain available and unused at this time. Is
that the chairman's understanding?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator. Am I further correct in my
understanding that these funds, because they are to be spent at the
President's discretion, could be used to remedy some of the terrible
destruction to historic properties that has occurred in my home State,
as well as Alabama and Florida, from tropical storm Alberto?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Senator is correct. And I would like to add that
given the availability of these funds relief could be provided on an
expeditious basis for the communities impacted in Georgia, Alabama, and
Florida.
Mr. NUNN. Is it the understanding of the distinguished ranking member
that these funds will remain available to the President until they are
expended?
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator and would like to yield to my
colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to state for the benefit of my colleagues
the great need for such disaster assistance in the southwestern part of
Georgia, as well as eastern Alabama and northern Florida. In the last 3
weeks, Senator Nunn and I have witnessed countless examples of the
devastation caused by one of the worst floods in the history of the
region. Among the casualties of these floods are many of the historic
buildings in towns along the Ocmulgee and Flint Rivers. I wonder if the
Senator from Georgia would care to comment on the destruction to
several of the historic communities in our State caused by the rising
flood waters that he and I have witnessed in the past 3 weeks.
Mr. NUNN. I am pleased to comment on the Senator's remarks. He and I
have both spent time in our State visiting areas completely washed out
by the flood waters. For example, in the historic business district of
Montezuma, GA, the flood waters have caused extensive water and mud
damage to virtually the entire historic central business district.
Additionally, three dozen brick buildings which were under
consideration for the National Register of Historic Places suffered
severe damage to brick foundations and walls, interior walls, and
floors. All of Montezuma's flood problems are being compounded by
septic complications arising from the flooding of the local sewer.
I would inform my colleagues that similar problems exist in several
other towns in the area. The city of Albany, GA, a city of 50,000, for
example, has had extensive damage to its many historic buildings, as
well. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources reports that the
historic African-American neighborhood of South Albany was severely
flooded, with waters in several blocks reaching the roofs of historic
houses. Also, the flood waters have seriously damaged several historic
buildings at Albany State College on the banks of the Flint River. As
in Montezuma, the cleanup efforts will be made more difficult by the
flooding of the local sewer.
In the town of Juliette, GA, on the Ocmulgee River, approximately 10
buildings in the downtown area made famous by the movie ``Fried Green
Tomatoes'' have sustained water damage to floors, lower interior and
exterior walls, and foundations.
The town of Newton, GA, which will have to be almost completely
relocated as a result of the floods, has suffered extensive damage to a
block of historic buildings adjacent to its courthouse. This entire
block was virtually submerged by the flood waters. Approximately two
dozen historic residences in the town were flooded in varying degrees.
I appreciate the assistance of the chairman and the ranking member of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Nickles. I am hopeful
this colloquy will highlight the needs of many of my constituents to
preserve Georgia's historic buildings and the heritage of these
communities.
Amendment No. 2387--Funding for Indians Into Psychology Program
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, several days ago, I shared with my
colleagues the horrifying experiences of several young native American
children who had been subjected to abuse or neglect by their parents
and others. While it is too late to prevent the abuse these children
have suffered, there is some hope that the damage can be mitigated if
they receive professional counseling and care. It would have been far
better, of course, if there had been professional preventive
intervention prior to the abuse.
The Indians Into Psychology program that Senator Burns' amendment
proposes to fund in fiscal year 1995 would be an important step toward
helping the abused native American children in my State and throughout
the Nation. The goal of the program is to improve the quality and
relevance of mental health services available to native Americans by
increasing the number of American Indian psychologists.
According to the Indian Health Service, child abuse is just one
symptom of deep psychological problems that exist on our reservations.
Native Americans are almost twice as likely to die before age 25 as
individuals from all other races. They are 50 percent more likely to
commit suicide, 90 percent more likely to be murdered, and almost six
times more likely to die from alcoholism. It is hard to believe, but
these statistics become even more shocking when we look at the younger
native American population. Native American children are almost four
times more likely to commit suicide, more than three times more likely
to be murdered, and more than 10 times more likely to die of
alcoholism. Depressive disorders are four to eight times as likely to
affect native Americans than the rest of the U.S. population.
My personal observations about the need for additional mental health
resources are underscored by a recent North Dakota survey that
indicated that only one of our four reservations had daily or even
weekly access to a psychologist. The American Psychological Association
estimates that there are fewer than 30 clinical native American
psychologist in the entire country, which means there is only one for
every 60,000 native Americans residing in the United States. In the
general population, there are 16.7 clinical psychologists for each
100,000 people.
Mr. President, the need for mental health providers on our
reservations is obvious, and the Indians Into Psychology program would
begin to address the problem by training and educating native Americans
as psychologists to serve this special population. I urge my colleagues
to support the Burns amendment and join with us to begin to address the
mental health needs of native Americans.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Mr. Nickles, for his
excellent work. I thank his staff.
So with the understanding that this is everything that I know about,
Mr. President, I am ready to vote. I am ready for third reading and the
vote.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first let me say I wish to congratulate
Senator Byrd for his chairmanship of the full committee, but certainly
this subcommittee because it certainly has been a pleasure to work with
him in passage of this. He worked very diligently in expediting passage
of this bill, and worked through 60-some amendments today as well as
noted countless colloquies.
So it is a pleasure to work with him.
I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. BYRD. It is far different from last year, is it not?
Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
So the bill (H.R. 4602), as amended, was passed.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to my friend, as we leave for the
evening,
Give me my robe, put on my crown. I have immortal longings
in me.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Commendation of Staff
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also in addition to congratulating
Senator Byrd, I would like to compliment the professional staff, Sue
Masica, as well as Cherie Cooper who have done outstanding work with
bipartisan cooperation which I very much appreciate.
In addition, I wish to compliment the work of Rusty Mathews and
Kathleen Wheeler, Ginny James, Dan Salisbury and Ellen Donaldson.
I think they have performed very vital functions, and they are very
professional, very competent. I appreciate their efforts and
cooperation.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its
amendments and request a conference with the House of Representatives,
and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part
of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Feingold)
appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeConcini, Mr.
Bumpers, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Burns
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both the majority leader and the
Republican leader for their excellent cooperation and support in
helping to bring this bill to the floor, and in clearing it for action
and passage.
Commendation of Staff
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also thank the following staff members:
Barbara Videnieks of my staff, Chief of Staff; of the full committee,
and majority staff, Mr. Jim English, Mary Dewald, Marsha Berry; of the
full committee, the minority staff, in particular Keith Kennedy; of the
Interior Subcommittee, majority staff, Rusty Mathews, Kathleen Wheeler,
Ellen Donaldson, Dan Salisbury, on assignment from the National Park
Service, Sue Masica; and of the Interior Subcommittee, minority staff,
Cherie Cooper, and Virginia James; of the Appropriations Committee
support staff, Nancy Brandel, Jack Conway, Bob Putnam, Richard Larson,
Bernie Babik, Bob Swartz, and Joe Thomas.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________