[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4043-S4045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S. 
672, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 672) making supplemental appropriations and 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Reid/Baucus amendment No. 171, to substitute provisions 
     waiving formal consultation requirements and ``takings'' 
     liability under the Endangered Species Act for operating and 
     repairing flood control projects damaged by flooding.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to file second-degree amendments until 10 a.m. this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Following that vote, additional amendments are expected 
to the supplemental appropriations bill. Rollcall votes will occur 
throughout today's session. It is the majority leader's intention to 
complete action on the bill as soon as possible, so Members who intend 
to offer amendments should be prepared to do so as soon as possible 
during today's session.
  Mr. President, there are 109 amendments filed to this bill. I plead 
with the Senate to vote cloture on this bill so we will have a means of 
managing this bill. It is a disaster relief bill.
  I now yield 5 minutes of the time allocated to me to Senator Hagel 
for the purpose of making a statement as in morning business, and ask 
that the statement appear at the appropriate place in the Record after 
the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hagel pertaining to the introduction of S. 709 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                           Amendment No. 140

(Purpose: To modify eligibility for emergency rail assistance funds in 
                               the bill)

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 140.

  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 28, line 8, strike the words ``in the Northern 
     Plains states'' and insert ``in September 1996, and''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this modifies the eligibility for 
emergency rail assistance funds under the bill. It has been cleared on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 140) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, later this morning, the Senate is going 
to

[[Page S4044]]

vote, as I said, as near to 10 o'clock as possible. I regret that this 
step is necessary. I didn't think it would be necessary to have 
cloture. Senator Byrd and I have spent 2 days trying to resolve 
difficulties on the bill regarding amendments. As I said, 109 first-
degree amendments are pending with regard to this bill. We simply 
cannot wait to move on the legislation. It does have millions of 
dollars for assistance to victims of the disasters. Those disasters, 
Mr. President, occurred in 33 States.
  The bill provides $1.8 billion to the Department of Defense for 
overseas contingency operations. This is for money that has already 
been spent on activities in Bosnia and Southwest Asia, and it replaces 
the funds that are critical to operating and maintenance accounts and 
personnel accounts to assure regular training and quality-of-life 
programs for the Department of Defense personnel through the remainder 
of 1997.
  Let me make that clear. The money has been spent, but it was spent 
from very critical accounts under the power of the Presidency. We need 
to reprogram moneys into those accounts in massive amounts to assure 
that in the last quarter of this year, there is regular training and 
maintenance of our readiness.
  Now, last night, we commenced a bipartisan review of all the 
amendments presented by 2:30. We hope we can work out or accept many of 
those. I urge any Member who is serious about the appropriations and 
has an amendment to this bill that is germane, to come to the floor so 
we can clear as many of the amendments as possible. It is my intention, 
after consulting with Senator Byrd, to take a very strict view to 
amendments in a post-cloture environment. I think that is what the 
Senate will want to do--consider germane amendments and move forward to 
this bill. Nongermane legislative amendments will be subject to a 
ruling by the Chair, and that will be taken up after cloture. But as I 
said, this is an emergency, although the funds--like the Department of 
Defense funds, money is being spent on the disaster now from other 
accounts available to the executive branch, so we must replace that 
money and make further money available.
  We have placed the money to keep the Government going, where the 
money has been borrowed for a short period of time, under the 
procedures available for disasters. We must make these moneys 
available. This is a 500-year flood, Mr. President. This is one of the 
most severe disasters we have had since the Johnstown flood. If we are 
successful here, I think we can proceed very quickly.
  The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has concluded the 
budget agreement. He will manage the budget presentation following the 
action on this bill. That is my understanding. We hope that we will be 
able to get that budget agreement through the Senate and then be able 
to proceed on the 1998 appropriations bills. So I ask Members to defer 
nonemergency matters until we bring up those bills.
  Now that we have a budget agreement, we are certain we will be moving 
regular appropriations bills very quickly. Many of the amendments 
presented here to this bill are amendments that would be germane to the 
regular appropriations bills for the various agencies. But they are not 
germane to this bill. So I hope that there is a strict ruling by the 
Chair on the germaneness of these amendments that have been filed.
  Now, we have worked several days to try and bring about compromises 
in several areas, such as the amendment pertaining to the continuing 
resolution concept that is in the bill, the census and endangered 
species. I hope that we can effect a compromise on each of those 
issues. If not, let's have the vote. We waited all afternoon yesterday 
to take up these issues. As the Chair knows, we were finally forced to 
recess last night so that we could get the control factor that will 
come from the cloture process.
  As I said, I didn't think it would be necessary. As a matter of fact, 
I told the floor staff I didn't think we should even file that cloture 
motion. They thought we should, and I am glad we did. They were right 
and I was wrong.
  Senator Byrd and I are going to work out the shortest time agreement 
possible on any amendments today. We expect to have many votes. I 
believe that we will begin to call up amendments from the eligible list 
as soon as the Chair rules on the amendments under cloture. As a matter 
of fact, we are available to take up amendments before 10 o'clock if 
anybody wants to come over and try to work one out before that time.
  I have taken the bulk of my time, Mr. President. Let me, again, thank 
Senator Byrd for his cooperation. We have moved numerous amendments in 
a bipartisan fashion already. Later today, Senators Conrad and Dorgan 
have asked us to meet with the mayor of Grand Forks, and we will do 
that. We are going to see some television footage. I saw some, as a 
matter of fact, on the news, but we intend to promise the mayor that we 
are going to finish this bill and get it to the President as soon as 
possible.
  I am happy to yield the remainder of the time to Senator Byrd, if he 
wishes time at this time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I do not need more 
than a minute or so.
  I shall vote for cloture, and I urge my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle to vote for cloture. We have been on the bill now 3 days. It 
is an emergency bill. The people who have been stricken by floods 
throughout the several States are in need of help. We should not delay 
matters here very long.
  I also hope that many of the 110 amendments that have been filed will 
go away without being called up. There are others against which points 
of order would lie, and I intend to join with my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Stevens, in making points of order against amendments that are not 
germane as he sees fit to do so. He is the manager of the bill, and I 
want to cooperate with him as much as possible.
  So I hope that we can get on with the bill today and make good 
progress and, hopefully, complete action on it earlier than the close 
of business tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I want to raise the issue of a provision that is in 
the bill concerning section 2477 of the Revised Statutes--43 United 
States Code 932.
  Some groups have been alleging in the press that the provision in the 
supplemental bill before us regarding rights-of-way under section 2477 
of the Revised Statutes is going to result in roads across our national 
parks and wilderness. That is simply not true. These false allegations 
are being made in order to scare our constituents and to convince 
Members to oppose our provision.
  Rights-of-way under Revised Statute 2477 were granted by statute from 
1866 to 1976, when the provision was repealed. At the time of the 
repeal, all existing rights-of-way were specifically protected.
  Rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 are granted across Federal lands not 
reserved for public uses.
  When Congress sets aside land for a park or wilderness, that land is 
reserved for that purpose. Once the park or wilderness is created, no 
new right-of-way can be created under Revised Statute 2477.
  This means that only rights-of-way that were created prior to the 
reservation of the land for a park or wilderness are valid under R.S. 
2477.
  To create a right-of-way under R.S. 2477, there must either have been 
public use of a right-of-way or an affirmative act of a State 
indicating that it accepted the grant and intends to use it for a 
public highway.
  Most of this Nation's most famous parks were created during the 110 
years that Revised Statute 2477 was available. Yellowstone was created 
in 1872.
  Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia were created in 1890. The Grand 
Canyon was set aside in 1908.
  Denali, then known as Mount McKinley, was created in Alaska in 1917. 
Katmai in Alaska was established in 1918, and Glacier Bay National Park 
was created in 1925.
  Zion National Park in Utah was created in 1919, with Bryce Canyon 
following in 1923, and the Arches National Park in 1929.
  Throughout the 50 or more years of each of these parks' existence, a 
Revised Statute 2477 right-of-way could

[[Page S4045]]

have been asserted, even before the provision was repealed. Yet, these 
parks have not been paved by public highways.
  Congress began creating wilderness areas in 1964--12 years before 
Revised Statute 2477 was repealed. Section 5 of the Wilderness Act 
specifically preserves existing private rights.
  It has been 20 years since Revised Statute 2477 was repealed and over 
30 years since the creation of many major wilderness areas. During the 
30 years of the policy of wilderness the same practice that the 
provision in the supplemental seeks to continue was in effect.

  Yet, during those 30 years, we have not seen any of our wilderness 
areas covered with roads under Revised Statute 2477.
  In Alaska, where 60 percent of the wilderness areas exist, we have 
already dealt with the issue. The Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act has numerous provisions that specifically deal with 
access to wilderness areas. Nothing in this provision changes the law 
regarding rights-of-way in Alaska.
  On the contrary, the provision seeks to keep the pre-existing policy 
and specifically denies the Secretary of the Interior the right to 
unilaterally change the policy contrary to what Congress has said many 
times and what the courts have said many times. As a matter of fact, 
Congress has spoken three times in the past 2 years on this and stated 
that the Secretary cannot change the existing law and policy by 
regulation or by edict.
  The people who claim this provision will lead to roads across 
wilderness areas and parks already created by Congress are just plain 
wrong.
  What is at issue here are areas that are not yet wilderness or that 
have been recently added by Executive action to our parks and 
monuments.
  Mr. President, every time Congress has addressed that subject, it has 
protected valid existing rights, even in the creation of national parks 
and wildlife refuges.
  Wilderness areas by definition don't have any roads. The 
environmental groups and the Department of the Interior are seeking to 
cut off valid rights-of-way in certain areas of the West so that those 
areas may be proclaimed wilderness.
  I hope that the Senate understands this. If the Secretary of the 
Interior and these groups are allowed to prevail, then areas that do 
have existing valid rights-of-way, which should by law be given some 
consideration and may ineligible to become wilderness areas, could be 
created as additional wilderness and national park areas by Executive 
order or secretarial edict.
  If they can keep the R.S. 2477 right-of-way from being recognized 
under State law, as they have been created for the past 130 years, then 
those areas would be roadless and eligible for wilderness designation 
by Congress.
  That is the issue here. There are valid, existing rights-of-way 
across some of these areas. They have been used for decades by the 
public in the West. Those areas are not capable of being established as 
wilderness areas. But that is not for us to decide here.
  All this provision does is maintain the status quo. If there are 
valid existing rights under R.S. 2477, they had to be created more than 
20 years ago, before 1976.
  The provision simply prevents the Secretary of the Interior from 
prejudging the issue in the ongoing review of which remaining Federal 
areas should be wilderness. This only preserves rights-of-way that 
already exist. It does not create new rights or new roads.
  I hope that the Senate will seriously consider the issue that is 
coming before us today regarding Revised Statute 2477. Our intent is 
merely to keep the policy that has existed in the past and which has 
been protected by every act of Congress that I know of. The valid 
existing rights were protected. Those rights have been defined as far 
as rights-of-way under State law for 130 years.
  This Secretary of the Interior now wants to have them decided under 
Federal law that his regulations would establish. That is contrary to 
the policy of Congress. It is contrary to the decisions of the courts 
of the United States, and it should not be done by secretarial edict.
  As I said, we have acted in the National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1995, in the 1996 Interior appropriations bill and in the 1997 
Interior appropriations bill to prevent those regulations from being 
issued. Now the Secretary wishes to announce a policy. That policy is 
that in the future the validity of the rights will be determined by 
Federal law. That is contrary to a whole series of court decisions and 
contrary to the acts of Congress that specifically recognize valid 
existing rights under State law.

  Mr. President, I hope that this is going to be a short day. But I 
want to tell the Senate that it is our intention, as Senator Byrd has 
announced, to enforce the cloture motion. I call again on the Senate to 
vote for cloture. Give the managers of this bill the control that comes 
from the cloture process, and we will assure this bill passes to 
provide money to those in the disaster areas. The bill affects 
disasters in 33 States, Mr. President. We will give this bill to the 
conference and to the President as quickly as possible.
  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. 208

  Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 208.

  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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       None of the funds made available in the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs, 1997, (as contained 
     in Public Law 104-208) may be made available for assistance 
     to Uruguay unless the Secretary of State certifies to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that all cases involving seizure 
     of U.S. business assets have been resolved.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that we hope will 
bring about an awareness of Government officials of Uruguay of a very 
sad situation with regard to the fishing assets from Washington State 
and Alaska that were entered into in a joint venture with a seafood 
company in Uruguay.
  What happened was that the assets of the Americans were seized after 
they were in Uruguay territory, and the joint venture that was supposed 
to be forthcoming was dissolved by actions of the Uruguay citizens.
  I offer this amendment sort of in frustration, trying to see if we 
can work out with the Uruguay Embassy here and officials in the State 
Department at Montevideo a resolution of this problem.
  I hope that it has the salutary effect of calling the attention of 
the Uruguay Government to a very unsatisfactory development with regard 
to our business relationships.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 208) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the time for filing of second-
degree amendments, I remind Senators. It is also the time set for the 
vote on cloture motion.

                          ____________________