[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3991-S3993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S3991]]



        SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?


                           Amendment No. 171

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the quorum call, and others matters 
that have taken place in the last few minutes, I have had the 
opportunity to speak in some detail with the chairman of the 
Environmental and Public Works Committee. He indicates to me that in 
the last little while serious negotiations have been undertaken with 
the administration and others interested in this problem that is now 
before the Senate. As a result of that, the chairman of the committee 
feels that this matter can be resolved. That being the case, I will at 
this time indicate to the manager of the bill that I am not going to 
proceed further. I will leave my amendment pending with the 
anticipation that we can work something out. I hope so.
  I also say to my friend that we will probably need an hour and a half 
on this side if, in fact, we can't resolve this matter. But we can 
worry about that at some later time. That being the case, unless the 
manager has something else----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret that we can't seem to get much 
going here. The administration now has the Endangered Species Act 
amendment under review, the amendment pertaining to the sense of the 
Senate is under review, and the amendment pertaining to S. 2477 is 
under review. I would like to find out what is going on down there in 
that three-ring circus so we might get this bill going. I understand 
the Senator wants an hour and a half, but we will have a cloture motion 
tomorrow, apparently. It will be this Senator's recommendation, if we 
can't get this bill going, let's go out and then come back tomorrow and 
vote cloture. I was told I am trying to hold up this bill. I was told 
that last week. We have been on the floor here for 2 days. I am 
perfectly willing to go ahead with amendments--amendments even to 
strike provisions we put in the bill. We are not holding up this bill.
  If we need a cloture motion to limit all debate, then I say the 
Senate should vote cloture tomorrow and do that. I am not addressing 
this to my good friend from Nevada. I understand what he is doing. 
There is a substantial possibility that it may be worked out with the 
administration. But I am not sure the administration has the urgency we 
seem to want to have for this bill. Mr. President, my recommendation to 
the leader is that if we don't get going here this afternoon, let's go 
out at 5 o'clock and come back tomorrow and get cloture. Then I know 
amendments will be voted on in orderly sequence. If we don't get 
cloture, we will understand, and the people from the disaster area will 
understand who wants the bill and who doesn't. I am very disturbed 
about this delay, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alaska, that is why 
I am here. I wanted to move this thing along. Nevada is one of the 22 
States that benefits from this legislation. We had a very serious 
problem around the first of the year with flooding. So I acknowledge 
the seriousness of this.
  I say to my friend from Alaska, if there were a cloture motion filed, 
I would vote to invoke cloture. I think that we do have to move this 
thing along, and that is the reason I am here. But with my having 
spoken to the chairman of the full committee, I think it is appropriate 
that I give him every opportunity he can to see if something can be 
worked out.

  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I meant no inference to the 
Senator from Nevada. He has been most cooperative. We just adopted his 
amendment by a voice vote because he was so cooperative in working out 
the terms of that amendment. I am sure we can go forward with his 
presentation now. But, clearly, without regard to the two of us on the 
floor now, the delays are taking place off the floor. I think it is 
time that we get the word out that we are just not going to sit around 
all day waiting for people to come to the floor. We still have the 
prerogative of going to third reading and cutting off all amendments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond, I haven't managed nearly 
the number of bills that my friend from Alaska has, but I have managed 
some bills, being a member of the Appropriations Committee and in other 
responsibilities I have had. I acknowledge that there are very few 
things in life more frustrating than being here, having a lot of work 
to do, and nobody shows up here. So I understand the feelings of the 
manager of this bill, the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee. This is important legislation. If we can't resolve this 
endangered species matter, let's bring it up, vote on it and get on to 
something else.
  Having said that, 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. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague on the Appropriations 
Committee, the Senator from Nevada, was on the floor just a few moments 
ago to discuss a provision on an amendment that the chairman and other 
members of the committee helped me place in this supplemental 
appropriations that really is a critical issue when it comes to dealing 
with flooded areas and flood victims, and the rebuilding of structures 
as it relates to floods along many of the rivers of our country.
  What we are finding out in Idaho is that, in certain instances, it is 
very difficult to rebuild the levy to once again provide that critical 
barrier between the human species and his or her property and an 
endangered species, in this instance because agencies simply can't 
agree. And, as a result, we go into these extended periods of 
consultation when the flood waters may be rising again, and the dike or 
the levy simply doesn't get built because there is not the opportunity, 
vis-a-vis the Endangered Species Act, to act immediately and quickly 
and responsibly to deal with these issues. We have found that in Idaho.
  I think the folks in North Dakota and the folks along the Ohio are 
going to be finding that out very quickly now as the flood waters 
recede and they begin to look at rebuilding along the rivers and making 
some of the corrections necessary, and doing so in a quick and timely 
fashion, in this instance potentially preparing for an additional 
runoff. That has happened in Idaho because we have had early floods in 
the first week of January. Several of my counties were subject to the 
100-year flood. My hometown of Midvale was under 4 feet of water. Those 
communities and the Federal agencies responded very quickly to build 
back those levies immediately, and were able to do so in almost all 
instances. But in St. Mary's, ID, where a flood occurred in 1996 in the 
winter in February, here we had actual construction of a levy stopped 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because they said that EPA and 
the community failed to respond to the Endangered Species Act.
  It is also interesting that in the delta area of California, Senators 
from California asked the Assistant Secretary of Interior to waive 
certain provisions so that citizens in that area could respond 
immediately, and, of course, that was done. The frustration often comes 
then when the agencies then step in after the fact and require very, 
very expensive and extremely costly mitigation. For example, in the 
area of St. Mary's, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is suggesting 
maybe $100,000 worth of mitigation, maybe 30-plus additional acres of 
habitat needing to be replaced, even though in all instances there 
appeared to be adequate habitat in the area.
  My provision in this bill, that the Senator from Nevada speaks of and 
is attempting to strike, covers only natural disasters and threats to 
public safety that occurred in 1996 and 1997. It eliminates the lengthy 
and unnecessary delay to flood control efforts. It is designed to allow 
Federal agencies and local communities to respond to human safety, to 
protect human life and to protect private property, and to protect 
those as the first line of defense in a flood and in the aftermath of a 
flood.
  Eligible flood control projects are not required to consult prior to 
emergency efforts. In other words, the Senator from Nevada was 
referring to a

[[Page S3992]]

provision that the House committee put in which said that, if it were a 
declared disaster--what I am suggesting is that, if the water is rising 
at an unprecedented rate and the local community and the flood control 
district think they needed to add another foot to the top of the levy, 
they can do so because it is an impending emergency. Right now it is 
impossible to do that, if by doing so they might damage habitat, or 
something that a Federal agency would declare to be a threatened 
habitat, or I should say a habitat that was threatened--obviously, an 
endangered species. What we are talking about is the ability to respond 
quickly. That is why this provision that I am talking about is in the 
bill.
  My colleague, Senator Kempthorne, has for the last good number of 
years worked overtime to try to produce a responsive reauthorization of 
the Endangered Species Act. He continues to do that. We are consulting 
now on adjustments and changes in this provision in the supplemental. 
My staff has met with John Chafee's staff and Senator Kempthorne's 
staff to try to work out these differences so that we can have this 
kind of timely response. It is critically necessary.
  I cannot believe that the Senate of the United States would not say 
that human life and private property at a time of impending emergency 
or at the time of the declaration of emergency should not be protected 
and responded to in a timely fashion, and not to have to worry about an 
agency coming in afterwards, and saying, ``Well, now you are going to 
have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate.'' 
Communities will respond. They will want to assure that that habitat is 
sound. But, first and foremost, they ought to have the right that they 
have always had in this country to protect themselves and their 
property. I don't care. The area in North Dakota ought to have that 
right. They ought not have to call Washington, DC, and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and say, ``What may we do? We have private property 
and homes to protect, and we are going to ask you to spend 48 hours a 
week deciding what we may or may not do.'' That kind of time does not 
happen in an emergency environment.

  I would also look at eligible flood control projects and allow them 
to perform restructuring and operation and maintenance directly related 
to the natural disasters or an imminent safety threat. That is what we 
are talking about here.
  I will work, as we have. We spent yesterday and most of today with 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Kempthorne, my colleague, to see if we 
can resolve this issue in the best interests. Certainly, I want to work 
with the Senator from Nevada on this issue to resolve it. But we are 
not going to create loopholes, nor are we going to let Federal agencies 
stand in the way of timely response to the private citizens and their 
need for protection of their person and their property. That is clearly 
the intent of the provision that is within the supplemental at this 
time. I cannot accept changes in that unless they have as their initial 
premise that very kind of thing. We just do not need to get at the 
business of a lengthy process here. That comes and always will come at 
a time when we can approach it much differently than the declared 
emergency, or the impending emergency that comes with the crisis.
  We have so hamstrung the citizens of our country by laws that simply 
disallow them the right to protect themselves and to respond in a 
timely way. It is amazing to me--that very incident, in my opinion, 
that happened in the north end of my State in the last couple of 
months, as we knew we were headed into a runoff season of the year when 
that river and those dikes needed to be completed and, yet, we really 
saw a ho-hum attitude on the part of the agencies and a shutdown of 
operations that resulted in the dike not being prepared in a timely 
way.
  That is the intent. Mr. President, we are working to resolve this 
issue. I hope we can do so. But for the time being, the language that 
is in the bill is important language and it meets the need that many in 
the House wanted, and that, obviously, many in the Senate believe are 
necessary also.
  I yield the floor. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 56, As Modified

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a lease 
of property for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at Lexington 
                Blue Grass Station, Lexington, Kentucky)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday we adopted an amendment that 
was presented by the Senators from Kentucky, Senators Ford and 
McConnell.
  Last evening that amendment was reviewed by the Department of 
Defense, and they have asked for one very technical correction. We have 
an understanding with them. It has been agreed to on both sides.
  I send the modified amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order to present this amendment to be a 
substitute for the amendment that was adopted yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Ford and Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 56, as modified.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 9, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 108. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO ENTER INTO 
                   LEASE OF BUILDING NO. 1, LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS 
                   STATION, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY.

       (a) The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement 
     for the lease of Building No. 1, Lexington Blue Grass 
     Station, Lexington, Kentucky, and any real property 
     associated with the building, for purposes of the use of the 
     building by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The 
     agreement shall meet the requirements of this section.
       (b) Terms.--(1) The agreement under this section shall 
     provide for a lease term of not to exceed 50 years, but may 
     provide for one or more options to renew or extend the term 
     of the lease.
       (2) The agreement shall include a provision specifying 
     that, if the Secretary ceases to require the leased building 
     for purposes of the use of the building by the Defense 
     Finance and Accounting Service before the expiration of the 
     term of the lease (including any extension or renewal of the 
     term under an opinion provided for in paragraph (1)), the 
     remainder of the lease term may, upon the approval of the 
     lessor of the building, be satisfied by the Secretary or 
     another department or agency of the Federal Government 
     (including a military department) for another purpose similar 
     to such purpose.
       (c) Consideration.--(1) The agreement under this section 
     may not require rental payments by the United States under 
     the lease under the agreement.
       (2) The Secretary or other lessee, if any, under subsection 
     (b)(2) shall be responsible under the agreement for payment 
     of any utilities associated with the lease of the building 
     covered by the agreement and for maintenance and repair of 
     the building.
       (d) Improvement.--The agreement under this section may 
     provide for the improvement of the building covered by the 
     agreement by the Secretary or other lessee, if any, under 
     subsection (b)(2).
       (e) Limitation on Certain Activities.--The Secretary may 
     not pay the costs of any utilities, maintenance and repair, 
     or improvements under this lease under this section in any 
     fiscal year unless funds are appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Defense for such payment in 
     such fiscal year.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this really deletes a provision, as I 
said, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' It was 
technically not necessary, and the department did not wish that to be 
permanent law.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 56), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have I substituted that completely for the amendment 
that was agreed to yesterday?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment numbered 56 
will be so modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will delete the amendment that we agreed to 
yesterday?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page S3993]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 173

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD 
   and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act concerning EPA State 
                                grants)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another amendment. It is a 
technical correction to the 1997 Veterans Administration and Housing 
and Urban Development appropriations bill as it relates to EPA State 
and tribal assistance grant account.
  The language in this amendment ensures that should the EPA be 
required to take over a State environmental program grant, funds 
otherwise provided to the State would be available to EPA for 
administering the program.
  This language represents no change in policy or procedure, and is 
deemed by the committee to be a technical amendment to existing law. It 
is an amendment presented in behalf of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Bond.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 173.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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:

       In Title III, Chapter 10, add the following new section:
       Sec.  . The funds appropriated in Public Law 104-204 to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants Account for grants to states and federally 
     recognized tribes for multi-media or single media pollution 
     prevention, control and abatement and related activities, 
     $674,207,000, may also be used for the direct implementation 
     by the Federal government of a program required by law in the 
     absence of an acceptable State or tribal program.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 173) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 174

  (Purpose: To authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to make 
      grants to the city of Bay City, Michigan, for environmental 
  remediation, using funds previously appropriated for the Center for 
                     Ecology Research and Training)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another amendment which I shall 
send to the desk. It authorizes the EPA to make grants from funds 
previously appropriated for an EPA lab in Bay City, MI, all but 11 of 
which were rescinded in 1995, to the city of Bay City for environmental 
remediation after all claims are settled from the funds that are 
available.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Bond, for 
     himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 174.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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:

       In Title III, Chapter 10, add the following new section.
       Sec.   . After the period for filing claims pursuant to the 
     Uniform Relocation Act is closed, and from amounts previously 
     appropriated for the Center for Ecology Research and Training 
     (CERT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall 
     obligate the maximum amount of funds necessary to settle all 
     outstanding CERT-related claims against it. To the extent 
     that unobligated balances remain from such amounts previously 
     appropriated, EPA is authorized beginning in fiscal year 1997 
     to make grants of such funds to the City of Bay City, 
     Michigan, for the purpose of EPA-approved environmental 
     remediation and rehabilitation of publicly owned real 
     property included in the boundaries of the CERT project.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment but does 
make available to the city of Bay City for environmental remediation 
the funds remaining available in the grant that was previously made.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Levin to 
introduce an amendment which will help close the door on the canceled 
Center for Ecology Research and Training [CERT], and end a difficult 
chapter for the city of Bay City, MI.
  In the late 1980's, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was 
working to develop a new laboratory to study land and marine 
ecosystems. After much consideration, Bay City, MI, was ultimately 
chosen as the location for this facility, and Congress appropriated 
over $100 million for the center's construction.
  EPA, however, moved slowly on the CERT construction. After 5 years, 
only a small portion of the appropriated funds had been spent. Thus, 
CERT was still a long way from realization and became an easy target 
when the fiscal year 1996 rescission was considered. After considerable 
congressional debate, the project was canceled and almost all the 
remaining funds were rescinded.
  Today, approximately $5.2 million of the already appropriated funds 
remain. These moneys are set aside for the EPA to settle CERT-related 
claims. In addition, as part of the arrangement to settle claims, EPA 
verbally agreed to direct the moneys remaining after all claims have 
been settled to the city of Bay City in the form of environmental 
grants. At present, however, there is no language which directs EPA to 
carry out this pledge, and if EPA is not given explicit direction, it 
will likely reprogram the funds. This language is needed, therefore, to 
instruct the EPA as to how the remaining funds will be spent.
  The amendment offered by Senator Levin and me will permit Bay City to 
clean and restore the area to a level acceptable to the Michigan 
Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. President, this legislation is 
very important to Bay City. The loss of CERT was a great blow to the 
city. Bay City needs to heal the wound that is this promised but 
unfinished facility. It is my hope that this legislation will bring 
closure to this unfortunate affair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 174) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider and I move the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, those were amendments that were 
previously filed in the 110 that were filed for cloture. We have 
cleared those. We will clear amendments as they are brought to us if 
they are technical in nature, but those should be deleted from the 
amendments eligible for consideration after cloture.
  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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I stated before that if we did not have a 
substantive amendment before the Senate before 5 o'clock, we would go 
into a period for morning business. After consultation with the leader, 
I announce that we will go into a period of morning business in just a 
few minutes. It will be the intention of the leadership to have a 
cloture vote at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. We will proceed to see how we can 
move forward with this bill at that time.
  It will be the policy of the leadership, and I support this policy, 
to not wait any longer for these amendments. There are too many side 
conferences going on, Mr. President, and there is no reason to wait all 
night for the possibility that we may have an amendment cleared for 
action this evening.

                          ____________________