[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9601-S9627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMITH-WYDEN AMENDMENT ON COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, included in the manager's amendment is an
amendment, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague,
Senator Smith, to provide an additional tool in the toolbox, if you
will, for rural counties who have come under significant hardship in
funding law enforcement activities covering National Forest lands.
Most particularly, Mr. President, a number of Oregon counties have
had their sheriff's office budgets nearly busted by the need to address
illegal, occasionally violent protests related to Federal timber sales
and the regular management of National Forest lands in Oregon.
On nearly every timber sale protest, my office has worked very
closely with the Forest Service to find help. We have literally shaken
the Forest Service tree to find additional resources to help small
counties deal with their heightened law enforcement needs when one of
these demonstrations occurs.
While the Forest Service has been helpful, it has not prevented these
rural counties from incurring, in some cases, nearly their entire
year's law enforcement budget on just one protracted timber protest.
Federal receipts must be used by Oregon Counties in the proportion of
25 percent for schools and 75 percent for roads. This amendment simply
allows counties to use surplus funds out of the share that is for
roads, on law enforcement activities associated with the use of public
roads of the county.
The Smith-Wyden amendment simply gives these counties--Douglas, Lane,
Klamath, Jackson, and Josephine--a small tool to help them deal with
illegal timber demonstrations that are political, and that are related
to the Federal management of Federal lands. It is patently unfair that
local
[[Page S9602]]
communities must bear this burden at all, but we believe that this
amendment will help.
I want to express my great appreciation to the chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, the ranking
member of the Interior Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and to
the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Senator Bumpers, for working with me and Senator Smith on this
provision.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment has been reviewed on this
side, and it is acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1241) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. 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. REID. 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. 1242
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
land to Lander County, Nevada)
Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1242.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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, insert the following:
SEC. . CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) Conveyance.--Not later than the date that is 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, shall convey to Lander County, Nevada, without
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States, subject to all valid existing rights and to the
rights of way described in subsection (b), in the property
described as T. 32 N., R. 45 E., sec. 18, lots 3, 4, 11, 12,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Mount Diablo Meridian.
(b) Rights-of-way.--The property conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be subject to--
(1) the right-of-way for Interstate 80;
(2) the 33-foot wide right-of-way for access to the Indian
cemetery included under Public Law 90-71 (81 Stat. 173); and
(3) the following rights-of-way granted by the Secretary of
the Interior:
NEV-010937 (powerline).
NEV-066891 (powerline).
NEV-35345 (powerline).
N-7636 (powerline).
N-56088 (powerline).
N-57541 (fiber optic cable).
N-55974 (powerline).
(c) The property described in this section shall be used
for public purposes and should the property be sold or used
for other than public purposes, the property shall revert to
the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1242) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GORTON. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. GORTON. 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. 1243
(Purpose: To increase funding for payments in lieu of taxes, with an
offset)
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senators Abraham, Levin, and Hatch, and I ask unanimous consent any
pending amendment be set aside and we consider this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Levin, and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered
1243.
Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 5, line 8, strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert
``$124,000,000''.
On page 64, line 16, strike ``$1,346,215,000'' and insert
``$1,342,215,000''.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this allows certain additional funds for
payment in lieu of taxes, has benefits to counties throughout the
country, and has an appropriate balance but does not affect the overall
balance of the bill.
It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1243) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope we are close to the end. We have
not yet quite settled the second-degree amendment by Senator Murkowski
or the first-degree amendment by Senators Stevens and McCain. I don't
think there are any significant number of other amendments that have
not yet been dealt with.
We do have a large number of colloquies, but I will wait to enter
them until after a vote on final passage. We will try to work out the
rest of it.
I notice the Senator from Alaska on the floor, and I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have not heard back on the Presidio. There was a
technical amendment pending on the Presidio. I am not aware whether or
not that has been agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. There is some confusion here about the location of the
amendment. We are looking for it.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. And one more on stampede.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it has been submitted for clearance. Would
the Senator care to suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. GORTON. 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. REID. 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. 1244
(Purpose: to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey, at fair
market value, certain properties in Clark County, Nevada, to persons
who purchased adjacent properties in good faith reliance on land
surveys that were subsequently determined to be inaccurate)
Mr. REID. 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 Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Bryan, for
himself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1244.
Mr. REID. 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, add the following new section:
Sec. . Conveyance of Certain Bureau of Land Management
Lands in Clark County, Nevada--
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) certain landowners who own property adjacent to land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the North Decatur
Boulevard area of Las Vegas, Nevada, bordering on North Las
Vegas, have been adversely affected by certain erroneous
private land surveys that the landowners believed were
accurate;
(2) the landowners have occupied or improved their property
in good faith reliance on the erroneous surveys of the
properties;
[[Page S9603]]
(3) the landowners believed that their entitlement to
occupancy was finally adjudicated by a Judgment and Decree
entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada on
October 26, 1989;
(4) errors in the private surveys were discovered in
connection with a dependent resurvey and section subdivision
conducted by the Bureau of Land Management in 1990, which
established accurate boundaries between certain Federally
owned properties and private properties; and
(5) the Secretary has authority to sell, and it is
appropriate that the Secretary should sell, at fair market
value, the properties described in section 2(b) to the
adversely affected landowners.
(b) Conveyance of Properties.
(1) Purchase offers--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, on
behalf of the owners of real property located adjacent to the
properties described in paragraph (2), may submit to the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management (referred to in this Act as the
``Secretary''), a written offer to purchase the properties.
(B) Information to accompany offer--An offer under
subparagraph (A) shall be accompanied by--
(i) a description of each property offered to be purchased;
(ii) information relating to the claim of ownership of the
property based on an erroneous land survey; and
(iii) such other information as the Secretary may require.
(2) Description of Properties--The properties described in
this paragraph, containing 68.60 acres, more or less, are--
(A) Government lots 22, 23, 26, and 27 in sec. 18, T. 19
S., R 61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian;
(B) Government lots 20, 21, and 24 in sec. 19, T. 19 S., R.
61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian; and
(C) Government lot 1 in sec. 24, T. 19 S., R. 60 E., Mount
Diablo Meridian.
(3) Conveyance--
(A) In general--Subject to the condition stated in
subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall convey to the city of
Las Vegas, Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the properties offered to be
purchased under paragraph (1) on payment by the city of the
fair market value of the properties, based on an appraisal of
the fair market value as of December 1, 1982, approved by the
Secretary.
(B) Condition--Properties shall be conveyed under
subparagraph (A) subject to the condition that the city
convey the properties to the landowners who were adversely
affected by reliance on erroneous surveys as described in
subsection (a).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1244) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1245
Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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 Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 1245.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
payment for facilities, equipment, and interests destroyed by
the Federal Government at the Stampede Mine Site within the
boundaries of Denali National Park, (1) the Secretary of the
Interior, within existing funds designated by this Act for
expenditure for Departmental Management, shall by September
15, 1998: (A) provide funds subject to an appraisal in
accordance with standard appraisal methods, not to exceed
$500,000.00 to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of
Mineral Engineering; and, (B) shall remove mining equipment
at the Stampede Mine Site identified by the School of Mineral
Engineering to a site specified by the School of Mineral
Engineering; and, (2) the Secretary of the Army shall
provide, at no cost, two six by six vehicles, in excellent
operating condition, or equivalent equipment to the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering
and shall construct a bridge across the Bull River to the
Golden Zone Mine Site to allow ingress and egress for the
activities conducted by the School of Mineral Engineering.
Upon transfer of the funds, mining equipment, and the
completion of all work designated by this section, the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering
shall convey all remaining rights and interests in the
Stampede Mine Site to the Secretary of the Interior.''
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe this is the Stampede Creek
Mine amendment. I am not sure of the status of the issue, other than I
believe the minority has agreed to it and it has been discussed. There
was a question by the occupant of the chair and by the Senator from
Arizona.
In 1987, the Federal Government, through the Park Service, blew up
the University of Alaska's mine. This was a mine that was a working
model. It was in Denali National Park. It had been donated to the
University of Alaska School of Mines by a man by the name of Earl
Pilgrim who, in 1942, purchased the claim and continued to operate the
mine--it was an antimony mine--until 1972. At one time, the mine was
the second-largest producer of antimony in the United States. It was
located in an isolated section of the park preserve. The Stampede Mine
was found to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places on June 20, 1989.
Today, the mine site contains--excuse me, did contain several
historic workable structures. The site is rich in equipment, machinery,
tools, and the myriad objects that make up the stuff of a mining camp.
Many of these items are unique to the Pilgrim's operation and reflect
on his own inventiveness and mechanical skills.
In 1979, Stampede Mines, LTD, entered into negotiations with the
National Park Service and the University of Alaska. As a result of
those negotiations, the mining company made a donation to the National
Park Service of the surface rights including road access from the
airstrip, the historic buildings, water rights, and stream banks.
It was believed at the time that the National Park Service possessed
the wherewithal to better maintain and protect the valuable historic
structures. Unfortunately, in 1987, history would record that there was
very little merit to this line of thinking.
At the same time, the University of Alaska Fairbanks' School of
Mineral Engineering was donated all the mining rights, mining
equipment, and fixtures, with mineral development restrictions for the
education of students.
Mr. President, the mineral development restrictions included
provisions which allowed for only educational use of the mineral
estate. No commercial mining would be allowed, only small-scale
educational mining, and even though the buildings, roads, trails, and
airstrips were owned by the Park Service, the university is responsible
for maintaining them.
The School of Mineral Engineering was most pleased with the
arrangement and looked forward to providing their mining students a
unique opportunity to learn firsthand about earlier- to present-day
mining operations and equipment by having the mining mill to actually
operate for the students. Given the chance, they would like the
opportunity to conduct such an education program in the future.
The educational program is consistent with the intent of the
university's receipt of the property. The School of Mineral Engineering
has developed a meaningful program that provides for initiating
activities associated with instruction-investigation about
environmentally sound mineral exploration and mining techniques in a
sensitive natural environment, as well as studying the geology,
biology, and ecology of the area, and studying the historical aspects
of the mine.
The program has already helped the mineral industry develop methods
to explore for and develop minerals on lands located in sensitive areas
throughout Alaska, even on land controlled by the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. President, it was to be an absolute win for the National Park
Service and a win in the field of education for the university. No one
in their worst nightmares, would have believed that the National Park
Service could blow this opportunity.
During 1986-87 National Park Service personnel conducted field
inspections of old mining sites located on their lands for the purposes
of identifying potentially contaminated sites and hazardous conditions.
Toward the end of July 1986, the Stampede Creek site was examined.
The inspectors recommended immediate action to examine the safety of
old blasting caps and chemicals at the site. Before taking any action,
the inspectors recommended that the ownership issue be resolved.
[[Page S9604]]
In other words, Mr. President, someone actually considered private
property. The matter was treated as serious, but not an emergency or
life-threatening. Nothing further occurred for 8 months.
Subsequently, National Park Service personnel and members of the U.S.
Army's explosive ordnance detonation team arrived, unannounced, at the
Stampede Mine site and on April 30, 1987, changed the configuration of
the mine site and its historic structures.
Mr. President, they moved 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate--private
property of the University--and placed it on top of the still frozen
Stampede Creek. Ammonium nitrate may sound dangerous but in its
packaged state it is nothing more than common fertilizer.
They piled 4,000 pounds of fertilizer on top of the creek and added
several half gallon bottles of acid-more private property which they
retrieved from the assay lab. Finally they added 45 pounds of high
explosives--set the charge and left the area.
Mr. President, let me refer to the pictures on my right which show
the Stampede Mine prior to this episode of the Park Service and the
U.S. Army ordinance detonation team.
This is the Stampede Creek. This is the mill and the mine. The mine
is back here in the hills. This is where the concentrates are
recovered, and so forth. The pictures show the facilities before the
explosion occurred.
I am going to show you the next chart which shows you what happened
when the Park Service finished their work. This is what the mine and
the mill looked like. As you can see, it is totally devastated by the
blast.
When the smoke cleared and all the debris fell back to the earth,
they found that the explosion left a crater in the creek 28 feet wide
and 8 feet deep. They also noticed a substantial change in the mining
site, which is depicted by this photograph.
Let me show you again the creek which indicates the significance of
what this crater did to this stream bed. You can imagine a hole 28 feet
wide and 8 feet deep. And this creek flows down into the watershed that
flows into the Tanana River which flows into the Yukon River, obviously
polluting and killing fish along the way.
The Park Service did it, Mr. President.
In addition to the mine entrance and mill, damage occurred to other
buildings, trees, landscape, and stream bed. The bombing also blew up a
5,000 ton tailings pile which by using USGS records for the current
price of metals would be worth approximately $600,000 in place.
Unfortunately the heavy metals of the tailings pile were last seen
moving from the site and being scattered throughout the environment by
the force of the blast.
One of the most telling reports concerning this debacle is from the
U.S. Army incident report No. 176-23-87 which stated that the NPS
personnel were aware that detonation would result in damage to the
surrounding buildings and according to Sergeant Seutter ``at no time
was it relayed to me that damage was unacceptable.
Mr. President, violations of the law are clear. There are violations
of the Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, section 404 of
the Clean Water Act involving wetlands, not to mention the taking and
destruction of private property.
Further, since the explosion, approximately $2 million worth of
mining equipment, some historic, has been damaged or destroyed due to
exposure to inclement weather and the normal Alaska freeze and thaw
cycles.
What I find equally outrageous is the fact that no one from the
National Park Service has, until most recently, said ``I am sorry''.
To be fair, during the course of the last 2 years the NPS has been
working with the university in an attempt to allow the university to
continue its educational program. Unfortunately, the site in its
reconformed condition lacks the historic integrity and lure that it
once possessed.
The university has located another historic mine site outside of the
national park boundaries that can meet the needs and requirements of
the university, its curriculum, and its students.
Mr. President, my amendment does not attempt to rectify all the wrong
that has been done. If we were to pass legislation, or use the court
system, to right the wrong that has been accomplished, the cost would
be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of the historic mining
equipment loss due to the explosion and subsequent neglect is cost-
prohibitive to replace.
My amendment would direct the Secretary: subject to an appraisal--and
I emphasize ``appraisal''--to provide up to $500,000.00 to the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering; and,
remove certain salvageable historic mining equipment to a location that
will be convenient for the university to pick it up and move it to a
mine site outside of the park boundary.
One would question, ``Well, what is the justification for this
action?'' There is none. The Federal Government blew up private
property, and the Federal Government should be held responsible and
make restitution.
My amendment would require the U.S. Army: to provide two six by six
vehicles to the School of Mineral Engineering; and, to construct a
bridge across the Bull River at the Golden Mine site to allow unimpeded
ingress and egress for the activities conducted by the School.
My amendment will ensure that all remaining rights and interests in
the Stampede Mine site held by the university would be conveyed to the
National Park Service, which is the wish of the Park Service.
Mr. President, passage of this amendment, and its subsequent
enactment into law, will ensure us that justice in this matter will
have been served and we will be able to put this incident behind us.
All accounts will have been satisfied.
Mr. President, the difficulty in asking the Park Service to meet
their obligation as in stating ``may'' and mandate that they actually
perform by stating ``shall'' is the difference between action and no
action. We have encouraged the Park Service. We have asked the Park
Service. And now it is time to direct the Park Service to right this
wrong because they blew up private property belonging to the University
of Alaska School of Mines. This amendment would attempt to rectify that
situation.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, very briefly, I don't know about the
particular merits of the project. But I do consider the specific
earmark for a certain sum of money. If this is going to proceed on the
floor, I think we ought to have a rollcall vote on it. So, if it is
sought to pass by unanimous consent, I will be objecting to that and
ask that we have a rollcall vote on this specific earmark for a certain
set amount of money.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is what I would propose.
First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a
cosponsor on the Abraham amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have one amendment by the Senator from
Alaska on the Presidio that can be accepted. Then I believe the Senator
from Alaska is going to withdraw his second-degree amendment to the
Stevens-McCain amendment. We can pass the Stevens-McCain amendment by
voice vote. Then I would suggest that we have stacked votes on the
Murkowski amendment that has just been debated, followed immediately by
a vote on final passage of the bill.
That is my suggestion, if we can get those other unanimous consents
ahead of time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 1232 Withdrawn
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the discussion we
have had, it is my understanding that we have been able to address many
of the concerns associated with the discussion on the $1.6 billion from
oil leases from offshore Alaska.
So it is my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Further, it is my understanding that Senator Gorton agrees with me
that
[[Page S9605]]
the additional $800 million should be captured through legislation in
the authorizing committee.
I understand the floor manager would support that.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 1232, withdrawn
Mr. MURKOWSKI. With that assurance, I would withdraw my second-degree
amendment.
Mr. GORTON. I believe I have to withdraw my motion to table that
second-degree amendment, which I do.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1232 is
withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1231
Mr. GORTON. Now I think we can by voice vote accept the underlying
first-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1231.
The amendment (No. 1231) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. 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. 1246
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Murkowski relating to the Presidio that has been cleared on
both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1246.
Mr. GORTON. 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 add the following new section:
``Sec. . Delete section 103(c)(7) of Public Law 104-333
and replace with the following:
``(7) Staff.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
the Trust is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation
and duties and terminate the services of an executive
director and such other officers and employees as it deems
necessary without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code or other laws related to the appointment,
compensation or termination of federal employees.''.
Mr. GORTON. I have already explained the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1246) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1245
Mr. GORTON. Now, Mr. President, I believe that the leaders approve of
it.
The question is the Murkowski amendment. It is a debated amendment.
Does the proponent of the amendment want to ask a rollcall on it or
the opponent?
Is not the question before the body now the Murkowski amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the
Murkowski amendment No. 1245.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. On that amendment I ask for a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
Now there appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Before we have a vote on that, I ask unanimous consent
that we adopt all further committee amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments on page 46, line 15 through page 47, line
25; page 115, line 1 through line 22; and page 123, line 9 through page
124, line 20, as amended were agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on the Murkowski amendment? If not, the
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1245. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the
Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Minnesota
[Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent
due to a death in the family
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Abraham
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--14
Allard
Ashcroft
Brownback
Byrd
Feingold
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Hollings
Kohl
McCain
Santorum
Sessions
NOT VOTING--5
Akaka
Harkin
Moynihan
Smith (OR)
Wellstone
The amendment (No. 1245) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Title V--Priority Land Acquisitions and Exchanges
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise today to speak about Title V of H.R. 2107--the
Interior Appropriations Bill. Title V provides an additional $700
million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
pursuant to the Balanced Budget Agreement, for priority land
acquisitions and exchanges. While I had sought to have more money
appropriated to the state-side LWCF matching grant program, I commend
Senator Gorton for appropriating this $700 million in a manner
consistent with the terms and spirit of the LWCF Act.
Over 30 years ago, in a remarkable bipartisan effort, Congress and
the President created the LWCF. The LWCF provides funds for the
purchase of federal land by the land management agencies--the federal-
side LWCF program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal,
state, and local
[[Page S9606]]
governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation areas and
facilities--the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The LWCF is
funded primarily from off-shore oil and gas leasing revenues which now
exceed $3 billion annually, and has been authorized through the year
2015 at an annual ceiling of $900 million.
However, LWCF monies must be annually appropriated. And, despite the
increase in offshore oil and gas revenues, the LWCF has not fared well
in this decade. Expenditures from the LWCF have fluctuated widely over
its life but have generally ranged from $200 to $300 million per year.
In the 1990s, total appropriations to both the federal and state sides
of LWCF steadily declined from a high of $341 million during the Bush
Administration to $149 million in FY 1997.
Most significantly, all of the FY 1997 appropriation was for the
exclusive purpose of federal land acquisition. In 1995, Congress and
the President agreed to shut-down the state-side LWCF program. For FY
1998, the President requested $165 million for federal land
acquisitions and only $1 million for monitoring previously funded
state-side projects. The President did not request any funds for new
state-side projects.
After submitting his budget to Congress, the President appears to
have seen the value of the LWCF. In the Balanced Budget Agreement,
Congress and the President agreed to provide an additional $700 million
for priority land acquisitions and exchanges from the LWCF. President
Clinton wants all of this additional $700 million spent on Federal land
acquisitions. He has not requested that any of this additional LWCF
appropriation be used to fund the state-side LWCF matching grant
program.
Priority Federal Land Acquisitions
As Senator Domenici stated on the Senate floor, the Balanced Budget
Agreement, and the accompanying Concurrent Budget Resolution, provide
no specifics as to how this additional $700 million is to be spent.
Neither the Balanced Budget Agreement nor the Concurrent Budget
Resolution mention, by name, any land acquisitions. Rather,
Congressional leaders intended for this money to be appropriated
through the normal legislative process. That is what Senator Gorton is
trying to do in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
The Clinton Administration has identified two priority Federal land
acquisitions: the 7500 acre Headwaters Forest property in northern
California and the 4000 acre New World Mine property in Montana. Last
year before the election, the Clinton Administration proposed, with
great fanfare, to acquire both of these properties through land
exchanges. However, because of the Administration's reluctance to work
with Congress to consummate these land exchanges, a number of problems
arose. The President then decided to acquire these properties through
an outright cash purchase, using $315 million of the additional LWCF
monies provided in the Balanced Budget Agreement.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, unlike its House counterpart,
has agreed to fund these acquisitions. However, it has made this
appropriation contingent on the enactment of separate authorizing
legislation.
As Chairman of the authorizing Committee--the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee--I congratulate the Senate appropriators for
respecting the role of legislative committees. Title V of H.R. 2107
honors this historical division of responsibilities among authorizing
and appropriations committees and the processes of the Senate, and the
Congress.
It also acknowledges that Congress needs to, and should, examine the
details of the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. The
decisions to acquire these properties were made with no public and
little Congressional involvement. As a result, a significant number of
unanswered questions surround both acquisitions. Examination of the
acquisitions is best done by the authorizing committee.
As an initial matter, Congress needs to authorize the use of LWCF
monies. The LWCF Act provides a funding mechanism for the acquisition
of Federal lands. It does not provide an independent basis for Federal
land acquisitions. The LWCF Act specifies, with limited exceptions,
that LWCF monies cannot be used for a Federal land purchase ``unless
such acquisition is otherwise authorized by law.'' From the information
available to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the exceptions
to this prohibition do not apply to either the Headwaters Forest or the
New World Mine acquisition.
The Clinton Administration disagrees, contending that site-specific
authorization for the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions
is unnecessary because existing statutory authorities allow the Bureau
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest
Service to use LWCF monies. Yet, the Administration fails to analyze
with any specificity exactly how the other authorities apply to the two
acquisitions and override the provisions of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act.
For example, the Clinton Administration opines that the Forest
Service has the authority to purchase the New World Mine property under
the Weeks Act. However, the Weeks Act was enacted for the purpose of
acquiring eastern forested land. At the same time, the LWCF Act limits
the Forest Service's use of LWCF monies for acquisitions ``primarily of
value for outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is recreation the primary
value of the New World Mine property? Or, is the primary purpose of the
acquisition to protect the character of Yellowstone National Park? What
about the fact that the LWCF Act limits the Forest Service's use of
LWCF monies west of the 100th meridian? Will the New World Mine
acquisition, at greater than 4000 acres, run afoul of this limitation?
Similar unanswered questions surround the Headwaters Forest
acquisition. The Clinton Administration states that the Headwaters
Forest would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. However, BLM
is required to use LWCF monies for land acquisitions which are
consistent with the applicable land use plan and ``necessary for the
property management of public lands which are primarily of value for
outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is the acquisition of the Headwaters
Forest even addressed in the applicable land use plan? Is it the
Clinton Administration's position that the primary value of the
Headwaters Forest is outdoor recreation? If so, how will the public
access this new recreation resource? Or, because the Headwaters Forest
has been identified as critical habitat under the Endangered Species
Act, is the Administration relying on the ESA as authorization for the
acquisition? Does it then make sense for the property to be managed by
the BLM? Is it the Administration's position that the ESA authorizes
the acquisition of any and all private property containing endangered
or threatened species and overrides the limitations in the LWCF Act?
All of these questions need to be answered before the Congress
accepts the Clinton Administration's assertion that existing laws
authorize the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and the New World
Mine and override the prohibitions in the LWCF Act. The Committee of
jurisdiction is in the best position to conduct such an examination.
Moreover, even if the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine can be
acquired by the President without the enactment of separate authorizing
legislation, Congressional authorization of the agreements is needed to
avoid other statutory requirements normally applicable to Federal land
purchases. Because the purchase prices for both the Headwaters Forest
and the New World Mine were the result of negotiation and dependent, in
part, on other terms, the actual fair market value of the properties is
unknown.
With respect to the New World Mine, a 1995 National Park Service
report estimates the fair market value of the property is less than $50
million. The Clinton Administration has agreed to purchase the property
for $65 million.
As to the Headwaters Forest, there is enormous discrepancy as to the
property's value. The current owner contends the property has a value
in excess of $700 million. A 1993 Forest Service appraisal values the
property at $500 million. However, a 1996 analysis of the property
conducted for the Department of Justice concludes that the property has
a value between $20 million, applying current environmental
restrictions, and $250 million, without any environmental restrictions.
The
[[Page S9607]]
Headwaters Forest property will be acquired for $380 million in cash
and property.
Moreover, the Clinton Administration apparently wants to ensure that
the fair market value of the properties is never determined. On June 9,
1997, President Clinton submitted an amendment to his FY 1998 Interior
Appropriations budget request to reflect the $700 million in LWCF
monies included in the Balanced Budget Agreement. The recommended
statutory language specifically references the negotiated purchase
prices for the two acquisitions.
The accompanying budget justification states ``by ratifying the
specific lands to be acquired and the purchase prices contained in
those negotiated agreements, these provisions would also obviate the
need for the United States to undertake additional and costly
appraisals under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act.'' The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act requires an appraisal of the fair market value of
private property the Federal government desires to acquire, whether
through negotiations or condemnation. One of the primary purposes of
this Act is to guarantee that any Federal land purchase is a good deal
for the American taxpayer.
It is bad precedent for Congress to bless the Administration's
blatant disregard of this law. Congress needs to examine, and determine
for itself, the fair market value of these properties and, whether or
not the purchases are a good deal for the American taxpayer. This
examination is properly done in the context of authorizing legislation.
The magnitude of these acquisitions make the disregard of this law
even more troubling. As noted in the Senate Appropriations Committee
report accompanying H.R. 2107, the $315 million spent to acquire the
two properties is more than the total amount appropriated from the LWCF
for land acquisitions over the past two years. Those appropriations
have been used to acquire dozens of properties--the vast majority of
which cost less than $1 million. None of them have been excluded from
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act.
The Clinton Administration needs to explain to Congress why the
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions warrant an exemption
from the law.
Congressional authorization is further needed because the Clinton
Administration has committed the Federal government to more than the
purchase of property.
The New World Mine agreement requires that $22.5 million of the $65
million purchase price be used to finance the clean-up of the property
which is contaminated from historic mining activities in the area.
However, LWCF monies are not authorized for environmental clean-ups.
While the Clinton Administration contends sufficient authorization
exists for it to use LWCF monies to acquire the New World Mine
property, nowhere does it argue that it may use $22.5 million of this
LWCF appropriation for financing a private party's CERCLA-type cleanup.
Whatever the contours of the debate over the proper uses and purposes
of the LWCF Act, it is clear Congress never intended for the LWCF to be
used as an environmental contamination insurance account. Yet, such an
impermissible use is precisely what the Administration now proposes.
Congress clearly needs to review and authorize such a use of LWCF
monies.
At the same time, the Agreement to purchase the Headwaters Forest
requires that the Federal government and the property seller agree to a
habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act for timber
harvesting activities which will occur on the remaining 200,000 acres
owned by the company. In fact, because of difficulties in negotiating
an acceptable habitat conservation plan for this property, the timber
company sued the Federal government. However, if the Federal government
and company agree to a habitat conservation plan, and the Federal
government purchases the property, the company's case against the
Federal government will be dismissed. To date, no such agreement has
been reached. I question, however, whether it is good public policy to
settle litigation in this manner.
I have touched upon some of the issues raised by the two
acquisitions. I have not talked about the Clinton Administration's
failure to acquire the properties through land exchanges, as originally
proposed. Questions also exist about how, and at what cost, the Federal
government will manage the properties upon acquisition.
We have held no hearings on the New World Mine acquisition. We have
held no hearings on the Headwaters Forest acquisition. Congress had no
input into the decision to acquire them. In fact, most of us know
little about the two proposals. We owe it to the American taxpayer to
review these acquisitions--a review best done by the authorizing
Committee.
state-side LWCF matching grant program
I also want to comment on the appropriation contained in H.R. 2107
for the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The state-side LWCF
program has played a vital role in providing recreational and
educational opportunities to millions of Americans. State-side LWCF
grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation
projects in all fifty states, including campgrounds, trails, and open
space.
The availability of outdoor recreation facilities is critical to the
well-being of Americans. People who participate in outdoor recreation
activities, are happier and healthier. Recreation is an important
component of our economy. Moreover, while trips to our National Parks
create experiences and memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day-
out, people recreate close to home. In Fiscal Year 1995, the last year
for which the state-side LWCF grant program was funded, there were
nearly 3800 applications for state-side grants. Unfortunately, there
was only enough money to fund 500 projects. In the intervening three
years, the local and state demand for those resources has only
increased.
That is why state-side LWCF grants are so important. State-side LWCF
grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor
recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for
state-side LWCF grants, they provide vital seed-money which local
communities use to forge partnerships with private entities.
Unlike the Clinton Administration, the Interior Appropriations
Committee has recognized the value of the state-side LWCF matching
grant program. It appropriated $100 million to the program over the
next four years and noted, in its report, that ``resource protection is
not solely the responsibility nor the domain of the Federal Government,
and that States can in many cases extract greater value from moneys''
appropriated from the LWCF. I congratulate Senator Gorton on this
appropriation and am optimistic that this provision will remain in
Conference.
I have attached to my statement, for inclusion in the Record, two
recent resolutions. The first, from the National Governors'
Association, calls on the Federal government to revive the Land and
Water Conservation Fund state-side matching grant program. This bill
does that. The second letter, from the National Recreation and Park
Association, urges the Senate to support the $100 million appropriation
contained in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
I ask unanimous consent that these items be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC.
Recreation Resources
Preamble
The Governors believe that participation in outdoor
recreation provides important physical, mental, and social
benefits to the American public, and that responsibility for
providing diverse and high-quality opportunities for such
recreation is shared by federal, state, and local government
interests and the private sector. Continuing growth in demand
for outdoor recreation opportunities has brought overcrowding
to some areas, while budgetary constraints, environmental
pollution, and conversion of open spaces to other uses has
further added to the challenges we face. This is particularly
true of resources within physical and economic reach of the
majority of urban populations. The expansion, development,
and management of recreational space and facilities is an
important national challenge that can contribute to both
quality of life and the economy. To effectively meet this
challenge, federal recreation efforts must be modified to
include a far greater emphasis on state
[[Page S9608]]
and local decisionmaking and on partnerships, particularly
with the private sector, than currently exists. The system
must also be reinvented to enhance program efficiencies and
effective program administration.
A Vision for America's Great Outdoors
The Governors support a vision of a safe, clean, planned,
and well-maintained network of recreation areas available to
all Americans. Important objectives can be achieved by
reviving and strengthening the existing Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery (UPARR) programs. The Governors recognize the
valuable work done by the National Park Service Advisory
Board report, ``An American Network of Parks and Open
Space,'' with its call for a balanced formula for ensuring
state, local, and national funding allocations to meet the
nation's diverse needs for recreation resources. In addition,
the Governors support continuing substantial funding for
recreation programs through appropriations for the federal
land-management agencies and through the expenditure of
monies at the federal and state levels under programs such as
the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund. The Governors also encourage the continued use of
private capital for investment in recreation facilities on
public lands and further encourage increased funding for
operational expenditures for recreation facilities and
services through general fund appropriations and recreation
fees paid by those who directly use those facilities and
services. To ensure that recreation funds are spent wisely,
the Governors believe that, at every level of government, an
effort should be made to understand and accommodate
recreationists' needs and interests.
guiding principles
The Governors believe that the creation and maintenance of
a nationwide network of recreation areas should be guided by
the following principles.
Priorities for spending funds must come from a sustained
effort to understand the needs of recreationists on the part
of those involved in local, state, and national planning
activities. State and local recreation resources planning
activities, including comprehensive outdoor recreation plans,
should continue to be a foundation for decisionmaking. The
Governors encourage a revitalized LWCF/UPARR program to
streamline federal requirements currently imposed on such
state planning and granting processes. At the same time, the
Governors acknowledge the importance of an open, public
process for allocating grants-in-aid and support continuation
of this important tool for effective citizen participation.
To assist in a better determination of national priorities
and their interaction with the expressed priorities of state
and local governments, the Governors also encourage
integration of federal recreation resource planning processes
with their state and local counterparts.
Programs for land conservation, preservation of cultural
landscapes, and recreation resource development require a
shared partnership among citizens, private landowners, all
levels of governments, and private organizations.
The equity of private property owners must be respected in
the implementation of recreation and conservation programs.
As the nation's recreation resources investments are made,
the Governors encourage continued attention to providing
quality recreation opportunities to all citizens, reflecting
the diverse needs for recreation that is safe, accessible,
affordable, enjoyable, and open.
National strategies and programs that aid state and local
governments should be flexible, effective, and efficient.
The long-term future of our nation's recreation resources
is dependent on a citizenry that is both familiar with and
appreciative of these resources. Programs that promote such
understanding and appreciation should be encouraged in both
the private and public sector.
funding
The Governors believe that Congress should encourage the
provision of adequate and predictable funding for the
nation's outdoor recreation resources from both private and
public sources.
The Governors support the principle that nonrenewable
resources leaving federal ownership, such as oil and gas
recovered from the Outer Continental Shelf, should be used as
a means to establish assets of lasting value to the nation.
The Governors recommend that Congress make available no
less than 60 percent of funds for state and local governments
with the balance to federal agencies to be used by both
principally for the purposes of acquiring outdoor recreation
areas and providing for and protecting outdoor recreation
opportunities. The Governors also support increased private
investment in recreation facilities on public lands.
The Governors believe it is imperative to adequately
maintain public recreation lands and the facilities on them.
The Governors recommend that, in addition to general fund
revenues, where appropriate and practicable, user fees and
private sector funding should be considered to help achieve
this objective. The Governors strongly recommend that LWCF
not be used for these purposes.
federal responsibility and partnership
Federally managed public lands and resources serve a
critical function in meeting national recreational needs, not
only in providing opportunities for outdoor recreation but in
providing the means, through the Federal Lands Highway
Program, to access and enjoy those opportunities. Federal
agencies should develop comprehensive outdoor recreation
resource use and access plans in consultation with state and
local governments and coordinate their planning with the
recreation resource needs identified by state and local
governments and private organizations. New federal
institutional arrangements are needed to give greater
visibility and authority to recreational program
administration on federal lands and to foster innovative
state, local, and private program partnerships. The
efficiency and effectiveness of federal recreational support
can be enhanced.
railroad rights-of-way
The Governors believe that where it is consistent with
state law and respects the rights of adjacent landowners, it
is in the public interest to conserve and maintain abandoned
railroad corridors whenever suitable for use as public trails
and greenways, for other public purposes, or for possible
future rail use. Such efforts can help achieve the goal of
the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors of
establishing ``a continuous network of recreation corridors .
. . across the country.''
scenic byways
The Governors believe that funding for the National Scenic
Byway Program, which recognizes the economic and social value
of fostering travel on the nation's most scenic routes, one
of the most popular forms of recreation in the country,
should be continued.
user-pay/user-benefit grant programs
The Governors believe that grant programs that return fees
paid by users, for example, federal gasoline taxes or excise
taxes on specific products, to programs which directly
benefit those users, should be continued. Examples include
the programs funded under the Pittman-Robertson Act, the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, and the National Recreational
Trails Fund.
____
National Recreation and
Park Association,
Ashburn, VA, September 10, 1997.
An Open Letter to the United States Senate
You will soon have an opportunity to vote on fiscal year
1998 appropriations for the Department of the Interior. The
Land and Water Conservation Fund state assistance program is
among the many important initiatives that you will consider.
We urge you to approve not less than the $100 million
appropriation for LWCF state assistance recommended by the
Senate appropriations committee in its version of H.R. 2107.
The LWCF state assistance program addresses the health and
welfare of our nation's citizens. By matching state and local
resources to complete priority projects for individual
communities across the nation, these resources provide access
to recreation and conservation opportunities for all American
citizens.They are the playgrounds where our children run and
shout. They are the swimming pools and playing fields where
we learn the values of teamwork, sportsmanship, hard work and
competition. They are the parks, picnic areas, pathways and
wild places where we find quiet and renew our connection with
the natural world. These places restore our minds and bodies
and enhance our quality of life. And most importantly, they
are accessible. They are down the street, across town, at the
metro stop and affordable regardless of economic status. This
is what sets these state and local investments apart from our
nation's great national parks, forests, refuges and public
lands. And this is why they are so important.
After two years without LWCF state assistance, thousands of
opportunities for conservation and recreation have been
delayed or lost. Restoring this program will allow projects
with available matching funds to move forward. It will also
renew the nation's commitment to its people to reinvest a
portion of revenues from the depletion of our energy
resources in state and local, as well as federal, recreation
resources. We hope we can count on your support.
Sincerely,
R. Dean Tice,
Executive Director.
requiring land management agencies to prioritize additional land
acquisitions
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to explain
to my colleagues an amendment I had intended to offer to the fiscal
year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill. I was persuaded not to offer
the amendment because of my concern that opening up the section of the
bill which provides an additional $700 million for land acquisitions
and exchanges would embolden those who would earmark these funds for
particular projects, without consideration of the priorities of our
Federal land management agencies. Therefore, I decided not to offer the
amendment at this time.
I do intend to pursue this proposal as separate legislation, and I
solicit the comments of my colleagues concerning this proposal,
described below.
[[Page S9609]]
The amendment would require the administration to utilize certain
criteria in preparing the prioritized list of land acquisitions and
exchanges that would be conducted using the $700 million increase
recommended in this bill for Federal land acquisitions and exchanges.
This amendment places primary responsibility for determining the
priority of land acquisitions in the hands of the Federal land
management agencies charged with preserving, protecting, and managing
our nation's natural resources. At the same time, the amendment
preserves the prerogative of Congress to approve or disapprove the
administration's recommendations prior to making any of these
additional funds available.
The amendment establishes seven specific criteria to be used by the
National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management in assessing proposed
acquisitions and exchanges:
(1) the natural resources located on the land,
(2) the degree to which those natural resources are threatened,
(3) the length of time required for acquisition of the land,
(4) the extent, if any, to which an increase in land cost makes
timely completion of the acquisition advisable,
(5) the extent of public and local government support for the
acquisition,
(6) the amount of federal lands already in the region, and
(7) the total estimated costs of the acquisition.
In addition, the amendment permits the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture to consider additional matters in their assessments, but
they must explain to Congress in a report what those additional
considerations were and how they were weighted in the prioritization of
land proposals.
Over the years, Congress has wisely taken steps to preserve our
natural heritage. We have protected many remarkable natural areas
through the establishment of national parks, monuments, wilderness
areas, wildlife refuges, national scenic areas, and other conservation
efforts.
While this Nation has no shortage of beautiful country to be
preserved and protected, there is a limited amount of funding available
to accomplish these goals. As a result, our Nation has a multibillion
dollar backlog in land acquisitions at both the Department of Interior
and the Department of Agriculture. Because of this enormous backlog, I
support the recommendation in this bill to make available an additional
$700 million for the land acquisitions and exchanges, consistent with
the budget agreement.
What this amendment would require the administration to do is not
new. The agencies already produce these types of rankings when
developing the President's budget request. The Bureau of Land
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service,
and the Forest Service all compose priority based lists. In this case,
we will be requiring the agencies to perform the same sort of priority
assessments on projects that would be funded with these additional
funds, to ensure that Congress has all the information necessary to
review the administration's proposal.
The amendment includes a requirement for the agencies to consider the
extent of local support for an acquisition proposal, as well as the
amount of land in the area already owned by the Federal Government.
Preservation of our natural resources is a high priority, but it must
be balanced with an awareness of the economic needs of local
communities and their ability to plan for future growth and
development. These two criteria will ensure that a community will not
be harmed unnecessarily by the removal of preservation lands from its
tax base or by undue restrictions on development and economic growth.
I understand the concerns expressed by the committee in the report
language about the costs of managing and maintaining current federally
owned lands, and I believe the agencies should focus on acquisition and
exchange proposals that would consolidate Federal land holdings and
eliminate inholdings to lessen these costs. However, I think it would
be a mistake to fail to consider funding new acquisitions and exchanges
that would protect and preserve resources that might otherwise be lost
to development in the near future.
Mr. President, I am very concerned that the committee has earmarked
$315 million for the additional funding for two specific projects--the
Headwaters Forest and New World Mines acquisitions. I am not seeking to
strike those earmarks in this amendment, although I understand an
amendment may be offered to do so, which I would support.
Unfortunately, these earmarks make clear the need for established
criteria for prioritizing the many pending acquisition requests at our
land management agencies. My amendment would ensure that all funds
which are available for pending land acquisitions and exchanges are
used prudently and for the highest priority projects identified by
Federal land management agencies.
Let me stress that I understand the right of Congress to review and
revise the President's budget request, as we see fit. My amendment is
simply intended to help us make those decisions by requiring input from
the Federal land management agencies on the expenditure of the $700
million we are adding to this appropriations bill for land acquisitions
and exchanges. Congress will still have the last word.
Mr. President, as I stated at the outset, I intend to pursue separate
legislation to require the administration to submit annually with the
budget request a list of proposed land acquisitions and exchanges,
coordinated and prioritized among the four Federal land management
agencies. The agencies would be required to consider the criteria set
forth in the amendment described above, and the Secretaries of Interior
and Agriculture would be required to explain the relative weight given
each criterion, including additional criteria selected by the
administration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I had
intended to propose to this legislation be printed in the Record at
this point. And I welcome the comments and suggestions of my colleagues
for improving these criteria and the process of ensuring that scarce
resources for land preservation are used prudently.
There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
On page 134, beginning on line 2, strike ``Provided'' and
all follows through ``heading'' on line 8 and insert the
following: ``Provided'' That the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the
heads of the National Park Service, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Forest Service, shall jointly submit to Congress a report
listing the lands and interests in land, in order of
priority, that the Secretaries propose for acquisition or
exchange using funds provided under this heading; Provided
further; That in determining the order of priority, the
Secretaries shall consider with respect to each property the
following: the natural resources located on the property; the
degree to which a natural resource on the property is
threatened, the length of time required to consummate the
acquisition or exchange; the extent to which an increase in
the cost of the property makes timely completion of the
acquisition or exchange advisable; the extent of public
support for the acquisition or exchange (including support of
local governments and members of the public); the total
estimated costs associated the acquisition or exchange; the
extent of current Federal ownership of property in the
region; The extent to which the acquisition or exchange would
consolidate Federal holdings or eliminate its holding; the
owner's willingness to sell or exchange the property; and
such other factors as the Secretaries consider appropriate,
which factors shall be described in the report in detail;
Provided further, That the report shall describe the relative
weight accorded to each such factor in determining the
priority of acquisitions and exchanges''.
On page 134, line 12, strike ``a project list to be
submitted by the Secretary'' and insert ``the report of the
Secretaries.''
gas utilization section
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee would be willing to enter into a colloquy with
me regarding the gas utilization section of this legislation.
Mr. STEVENS. I would.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that the administration request
for gas utilization was $4.8 million dollars.
Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is also my understanding that the House has added
an additional $2 million above the administration request; and that the
Senate has agreed to add $1.5m to the administration request.
[[Page S9610]]
Mr. STEVENS. That is also correct.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that some of the additional funds
Congress has added may be used by the Department of Energy to fund an
$84 million cost-shared private research project for the development of
a process for commercialization of a ceramic membrane used to convert
natural gas to synthetic crude which can then be transported via
conventional oil transportation systems?
Mr. STEVENS. I understand that to be correct as well.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee I have taken a keen interest in the development of this
technology. In fact at a committee hearing in July of this year we
discussed some of these developing technologies. One thing that is
becoming clear when you talk about natural gas conversion to liquids is
that there is ``more than one way to skin a cat.''
In other words there seem to be a number of companies around the
globe that are developing this technology with their own particular
nitch. I would not, at this time try to predict which particular
process is going to emerge as the best, nor would I attempt to predict
when this technology will be used on a commercial basis. By some
industry accounts this technology is here now. By others it is years
off.
Would the chairman agree that it makes sense then to possibly look at
other methods being used to develop this technology.
Mr. STEVENS. I would defer to the chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and agree that it would make sense to look at other
potential technologies as well.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would the chairman seek in conference to try and match
the House level of $2 million and try to preserve flexibility for the
Department of Energy to support other cost-sharing projects looking at
ways to convert natural gas to liquids?
Mr. STEVENS. I would.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the subcommittee chairman, the
distinguished Senator from Washington would also support this?
Mr. GORTON. In light of the different technologies brought to my
attention by the Senators from Alaska, I will indeed be inclined to
favor the House funding level in conference if that level will
facilitate investigation of alternative technologies while ensuring
that the current project moves forward.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will continue to monitor the existing project and
thank the chairman and subcommittee chairman.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy regarding Oklahoma Indian funding with the distinguished
chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Oklahoma
is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand the bill before us contains
several categories of Interior Department funding for Indians, one of
which is the ``new tribes'' account. I also understand that the
committee has included, as requested by the Administration, $160,000
from this account for the Delaware Tribe of Indians, a tribe located in
eastern Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from
Washington, is that correct?
Mr. GORTON. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. NICKLES. Thank you, Mr. President.
Tribal Welfare
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I should like to engage in a discussion
with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee
about a provision in this bill that is very important to the Indian
tribes in my State. The committee report directs the BIA to spend $5
million from the Tribal Priority Allocation [TPA] to provide funds to
Indian tribes that wish to run their own welfare programs in States
where the tribal welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent of total caseload.
I am very grateful to my colleagues for recognizing the unique
situation that exists in my State. More than half of the welfare
caseload in South Dakota is made up of native Americans. Poverty on
South Dakota reservations is very high; in the last census poverty
among the South Dakota tribes was greater than 50 percent. My State has
the dubious distinction of having the poorest county in the country,
and it is a reservation county. Unemployment is also very high. For the
largest tribes, it was 44 percent in 1995. The number of native
Americans in the potential labor force who are not working averages 68
percent and, on some reservations, is as high as 95 percent.
The native Americans in my State do not want to be dependent on
welfare. Representatives for the tribes have talked extensively with me
about how they want to build their economies and help their people find
good jobs. They dream of the day when all native American people will
have the opportunity to hold good jobs and have the satisfaction of
contributing to the economic strength of their communities.
For a number of complex reasons, this has been a difficult dream to
accomplish. While they are working to improve their economies, they
also want to assume the responsibility and use the option that is
granted in the welfare bill to run their own welfare programs. They
believe it is a matter of sovereignty, indeed even a treaty matter,
that they enter into this new relationship with the Federal Government
in a way that is parallel to how the States are treated. They do not
want to be dependent upon the State. So they have asked for this
funding to make it possible for them to take over their welfare
programs and have a fair chance of succeeding in making their people's
lives a little better.
That is why I feel this provision is so important, and why I want to
make sure it gives them the best chance at success. For this reason, I
would like to ask my colleagues a few questions.
As noted, the committee report indicates that $5 million would be
provided under the Tribal Priorities Allocation to Indian tribes in
States where the Indian welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent that wish
to run their own welfare programs, and that the funds can be expended
over a 2-year period. Is that also the chairman's understanding?
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would tell my colleague that, yes, the
TPA account is authorized to expend funds for 2 years.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I mentioned that the tribes in my State
have indicated that they would like to run their own programs, but it
is possible that some will decide it is not feasible for them to do so.
The way this proposal is currently structured, if this happens, I would
want to make sure that any unused funds revert to the TPA, and not the
U.S. Treasury. Is it the committee's intent that, if all of the funds
are not used 60 days prior to when they would otherwise lapse, they
would then revert to the TPA fund to be allocated according to the
program's formula?
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, because these
funds are expended as part of the TPA account, any unused funds would
revert to the other uses of the TPA account. We would support allowing
this to happen 60 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am in agreement with the subcommittee
chairman. Such an arrangement would ensure that any funds not expended
for this welfare initiative would be used for other TPA priorities.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to raise a technical detail
that is not addressed in the report language. One of the tribes in
South Dakota, the Standing Rock Tribe, also extends into North Dakota.
It was my intention that, if that tribe chooses to submit a plan to run
its own welfare program, the funds be available to run their program in
both North and South Dakota, and that the match for the tribal members
in North Dakota be proportionate to the match that Standing Rock would
have received from their State. I should note that the amount of
funding is sufficient to allow Standing Rock to serve both its North
and South Dakota members. Would the chairman and ranking member agree
that this would be possible under this provision?
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that could be accommodated under
the committee's language and would be happy to work with the Senator to
make sure this is the case.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the chairman and ranking member would
continue to indulge me, I would like to clarify one more technical
point. The
[[Page S9611]]
report language says that the funds would be available to tribes whose
caseloads exceed 50 percent of the total welfare caseload for the
State. In point of fact, the tribes per se do not have caseloads, the
States currently run the programs. My hope is that the chairman
intended to indicate that funds would be provided in States where
native Americans exceed 50 percent of a State's total caseload using
data collected by the Administration for Children and Families at the
Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal year 1995. Was that,
in fact, the committee's intent?
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yes, the intention was that the funds be
provided to tribes in a State where the number of native Americans as a
percent of total State caseload exceeded 50 percent in fiscal year
1995.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have one last question. As the Senators
on this committee are painfully aware, allocating discretionary
spending in times of major budget cutting has resulted in many
difficult decisions. But, I would point out that the TPA account, which
is the one from which this funding would be taken, was cut fairly
heavily earlier in the 1990's and is only now starting to regain some
of its resources. At the same time, the need among many of the tribes
has been growing steadily. Indeed, many parts of Indian Country have
not always shared in the economic boom that the rest of the Nation
currently enjoys. I would like to ask my colleagues whether they might
be willing to find an alternative offset, one which does not take away
resources from other tribes, in order to find this important provision.
I am, of course, aware that the increase requested by the President for
TPA included in this budget, as well as funding for this provision.
Would my colleagues be willing to work with me during conference to try
to find an alternative means of providing these funds?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Democratic leader clearly understands
the difficult problems we face in allocating limited resources for the
programs in our jurisdiction that are important for many of the Members
of this body. However, we would certainly be willing to work with him
during conference to see whether alternative funds might be available.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I express my sincere gratitude to the
chairman and ranking member of the Interior subcommittee for their
assistance in this matter. Last year's welfare reform bill provides an
important opportunity for Indian tribes to run their own welfare
programs. As I have said, I have met with representatives of all of the
tribes in my State about this issue, and they care very deeply about
it. I hope that, with these funds, they will be able to take on this
important responsibility and help tribal members gain economic self-
sufficiency.
CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER ON THE FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION OF
IDAHO
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Chairman yield for purposes of a
colloquy?
Mr. GORTON. I am happy to enter into a colloquy with the Senators
from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I do not know if the Chairman is familiar with the problem
faced by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe of Idaho regarding the
contamination of the groundwater on the Fort Hall Reservation where the
Tribe is located?
Mr. Gorton. I am.
Mr. CRAIG. Then the Chairman knows that since the 1970's a deadly
poison named ethylene dibromide, or EDB, has been used as a pesticide
on the reservation. Over time, EDB has leached into the groundwater at
unsafe levels. Currently, approximately 1,500 people, both on and off
the Fort Hall Reservation, are at risk. Most of those living on the
reservation are served by one of two existing drinking water systems--
one operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the other by Indian
Health Service.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Nothing is more important than ensuring all of our
citizens have safe and affordable supply of drinking water. Over the
last 6 years, both agencies have been very helpful. The Indian Health
Service has provided technical assistance and funding to characterize
the groundwater contamination and to investigate alternatives. Its
efforts have included the drilling and testing of wells, conducting
Tribal meetings, providing educational material, and assisting in
Federal coordination. In addition, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency,
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service,
and others have devoted an enormous effort over several years to assess
the situation and develop alternative solutions.
Mr. CRAIG. I would also like to bring to the Chairman's attention
that the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a needs assessment on the
EDB problem. This assessment concluded that the preferred alternative
is the incorporation of the existing Indian Health Service water supply
system into a new, larger drinking water system. Such a project would
involve the drilling of new public wells outside the contaminated area
and piping the water to the residents whose wells are unsafe.
Mr. GORTON. It would appear that such a recommendation would be a
reasonable approach to provide for the delivery of safe drinking water
to the 1,500 people currently at risk.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree with the Chairman. The recommendation
outlined by the Bureau of Reclamation is the most logical and cost-
effective alternative.
Mr. CRAIG. Of course such a project would be expensive. However, this
burden would be spread out over the several agencies from all levels of
Government which would share responsibility for its completion. The
Indian Health Service already has identified and suggested several
areas where it might be of assistance during the education, public
involvement, and coordination phase. These include providing further
educational assistance and public information materials, the
investigation of alternative water sources, assistance in the selection
and implementation of appropriate treatment technologies, the design of
ground water monitoring plans and schedules, and the coordination and
sharing of data and analysis.
Mr. GORTON. Along with the other Federal agencies involved in the
actual construction of the drinking water system, I would agree that
the Indian Health Service clearly has a role in the education and
advisement of the affected community, so long as the Service meets its
priorities and other obligations.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree with the Chairman. Of course, we understand
that funding for this project cannot be guaranteed, given the many
competing priorities faced by the Indian Health Service.
Mr. GORTON. Given the threat to the health of those exposed to the
contaminated drinking water, I would support whatever assistance the
Service could provide.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chairman and am pleased to hear of his
strong support of this project.
Mr. CRAIG. I too would like to thank the Chairman. Seeing this
project started as quickly as possible has become a high priority for
myself and my fellow Idahoans. We are committed to getting this project
completed and will be working over the coming months and years to see
that all necessary funds are appropriated for the project's
construction. Beginning the education phase now, through the Indian
Health Service, will save valuable time and help relieve the threat of
continued harm.
fossil energy r&d account: Coal mine methane program
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller and I would like to
engage the manager of the Interior Appropriations bill in a brief
colloquy.
Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to respond to my friend who is the
ranking member on the subcommittee and to his colleague from West
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller.
Mr. BYRD. The committee's recommendation does not fund the
administration's $963,000 request for the Coal Mine Methane Program
under the Fossil Energy account. I believe that the House also declined
to fund this program based on the belief that it was a ``new start.''
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the fiscal constraints facing this bill and
the difficult task that our chairman has accomplished in a fair and
bipartisan manner. However, I would hope that we could take a second
look at this methane recovery program.
[[Page S9612]]
Mr. President, this program is not a new start as the House committee
report suggests. Congress appropriated money specifically for the Coal
Mine Methane Program in fiscal year 1995. Some of the funds for this
initiative were obligated prior to the rescission bill enacted in 1995.
While the Department may have gotten off to a slow start with this
program, for the past 18 months it has had five teams under contract to
prepare phase II detailed project designs. The original appropriation
to initiate these projects has been exhausted, and the funds requested
for fiscal year 1988 are necessary to complete the ongoing project
designs. I am told that the five teams have provided costsharing in
excess of thirty percent.
The Department of Energy has indicated that the Coal Mine Methane
Program can make a significant contribution to the effort to curtail
greenhouse gases and estimates that within five years coal mine methane
collection and utilization systems could reduce emissions by an amount
equivalent to 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide [CO2] each
year. The Department's research is expected to demonstrate that the
private sector can, remarkably, generate profit by utilizing and
destroying these waste gases. Given the large, cost-effective and near-
term potential of this research, the Department has proposed the Coal
Mine Methane program as one of its global climate change research
initiatives.
As the sponsor of Senate Resolution 98, I am clearly on the record in
opposition to any binding international greenhouse gas emissions
agreement that would injure the American economy or put us at a
competitive disadvantage with any other countries. At the same time, I
strongly believe that we in Congress should promote the development and
use of technologies that can become economically competitive energy
sources and which, at the same time, reduce potential greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Coal Mine Methane program clearly meets these standards. Turning
pollution into useful energy at a competitive price, with no subsidies
and no new regulation, can be good for electric consumers, good for the
environment and good for America, in general.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I completely agree with the comments
of my senior Senator. I would note that three of the five teams under
contracts to the Department of Energy are working on projects in our
State of West Virginia. I understand that the other two are located in
Alabama and Ohio.
These five projects offer great promise compared to conventional
greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. A single, small coal mine methane
project designed to produce 10 megawatts of electricity is expected to
operate at a profit. That same project would unequivocally produce
collateral greenhouse gas mitigation benefits equal to the carbon
sequestered by approximately 14 million trees. In sharp contrast to the
profit generated by the coal mine methane project, tree planting would
come at a cost conservatively estimated at $18 million. So, DOE's
methane capture program makes dollars and sense.
This program is relatively small in terms of Federal cost but can
leverage significant private sector investment and may generate
considerable economic and environmental benefits for Americans living
in the Appalachian coal regions. I hope that we may reconsider the
recommendation on this particular program.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senators make a compelling case.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. In that light,
I inquire whether he would have any objection if the Department were to
shift up to $500,000 to continue the Coal Mine Methane Program.
Mr. GORTON. As the Senator may know, the reprogramming threshold
established by the committee's guidelines is $500,000. I do appreciate
the clarification that this effort would not be a new start. Should the
Department be able to identify funds for a reprogramming, it should
consider the needs associated with completing the ongoing project
designs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for
his consideration and support of this matter.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I offer my appreciation as well. As always,
the Senator from Washington has been most fair in this deliberation.
engineering related services utilized by department of interior
agencies
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue with the
Chairman as we conclude the debate on the Interior Appropriations bill.
I had intended offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators
Thomas and Murkowski to instruct the various agencies of the Department
of the Interior to prepare a report to the committee regarding the
instances in which they have entered into InterAgency Service
Agreements with other Federal agencies or into agreements with State
and local governments on foreign entities. Unfortunately, we have been
unable to reach agreement among members of the committee on the
feasibility and scope of this amendment. I am disappointed with this
development and I will not offer this amendment this evening.
As the Chairman well knows, there are a number of architectural,
engineering, geological mapping and even aircraft services that are
contracted out by the various agencies within the Department of the
Interior. I simply would like to get a sense of the impact on private
engineering and consulting firms when agencies enter into agreements or
contract for services within. I believe the information would have been
valuable to the committee. It would help the committee recognize
opportunities to save money by using the private sector more often and
it will help redirect agencies toward their core governmental missions.
While I will not offer this amendment, I intend to continue to pursue
this information. I ask the Chairman if he would be also be interested
in exploring this issue further?
Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Utah raises a good point. But given our
very short timeframe, I appreciate the Senator's decision to withhold.
The information to be gathered by any such inquiry would be very costly
and time-consuming to develop, so I would hope that a more focused
effort could be considered. The Senator is correct that cost-saving
measures are important during tight budget times, and I appreciate his
interest in this matter.
needed repairs to twin reservoir dam
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a
colloquy to bring to his attention the need for repairs to the Twin
Reservoir Dam located near Polson, MT.
Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
Mr. BAUCUS. The dam is in need of $50,000 in repairs, and I would
like to know if the Chairman would support the Bureau of Indian Affairs
if the BIA could allocate funds within existing resources to make these
much-needed repairs.
Mr. GORTON. I would support whatever assistance the Bureau of Indian
Affairs could devote to repairs of the Twin Reservoir Dam, so long as
the expenditure of any funds is consistent with the Bureau's
priorities.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman.
electrochromic research
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we would like to engage our dear friend,
Senator Gorton, in a colloquy. He has once again drafted a difficult
bill this year and has balanced difficult priorities. Within the energy
conservation section of the bill, the committee has provided $500,000
more than in fiscal year 1997 for electrochromic research within the
building equipment and materials section. We would hope that it is the
expectation of the chairman that this $500,000 increase will be used to
further the development of Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition
[PECVD] techniques for electrochromic technology.
Mr. MACK. Understand that this technology provides a flexible means
to control the amount of light and heat that passes through a glass
surface. This is a superb energy savings opportunity important to the
Nation.
In recognition of the importance of this technology, Florida has
provided $1.2 million in State funds to develop this technology in
cooperation with the University of South Florida and a licensee of a
technology developed by the National Renewable Laboratory in Colorado.
Is it the Chairman's understanding that the Committee intends that
this project be a priority for the use of this $500,000 addition?
Mr. GORTON. I appreciate my colleagues bringing this technology to my
[[Page S9613]]
attention. It is indeed a promising technology that could produce
substantial energy savings. Within the increase provided for
electrochromic research, I hope the Department will consider supporting
the PECVD project, provided this can be accomplished without a
substantially adverse impact on ongoing projects in the electrochromic
program. I further hope the Department will consider PECVD in
formulating its FY 1999 budget request.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I concur with the subcommittee chairman's
assessment. DOE should evaluate the potential benefits of this
technology when considering its allocation of fiscal year 1998 funds.
ihs funding
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wish to inquire of my colleague from
Washington State, Senator Gorton, chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, on the funding status of health facility
construction projects within the Indian Health Service that are in the
design and engineering phase. Prior to the 1998 appropriations process,
the Congress had funded about two-thirds of the design and engineering
work that is necessary prior to begin construction of the new Winnebago
Hospital. This hospital, now over 70 years old, serves the Indian
people in northeast Nebraska and northwest Iowa. The Indian Health
Service has indicated that another $650,000 will be needed to complete
the design phase. Does Senator Gorton share my understanding of this
situation?
Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator from Nebraska is correct as to this
funding shortfall. In addition, there are two other nonhospital
facilities in Arizona for which appropriated design funds have not been
sufficient. The administration's fiscal year 1998 budget did not
request design funds for these facilities either. This lack of a
funding request has meant that neither the House nor the Senate has
included funds necessary to complete the design phase for the Winnebago
Hospital.
Mr. KERREY. I thank Senator Gorton for bringing this matter to the
attention of the Senate. It is an incredible slip on the part of the
IHS to have neglected to request these needed funds. It appears that in
previous years the IHS seriously underestimated the amount of funding
that would be required to complete the design phase of this facility.
This is why it is so puzzling that there was no request for additional
funding in this budget year. Every delay in funding means increased
project costs. My question to Senator Gorton and to Ranking Member Byrd
is whether it is still possible for the Congress to find some funds in
this appropriations measure to be sure these projects stay on track?
Mr. GORTON. It is my understanding that a total of $2.1 million would
be needed to complete the design phase for the three projects. There
simply is not that leeway in the measure we are considering today.
However, should funds become available as a result of conference
agreements with the House, I will try to see that they are made
available for completion of the design phase of the three projects if
that is agreeable to my colleague, Senator Byrd.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President, at this point I think that this is the
best commitment that we can make to our colleagues from Nebraska and
Arizona. If we are not able to accomplish this, however, we can
consider including conference report language directing the IHS to
include funding requests in the fiscal year 1999 budget to complete the
design phase for these facilities; funding requests to begin first
phase construction of these facilities might also be appropriate.
Mr. KERREY. I am very pleased that my colleagues are as concerned as
I am about meeting the health needs of our native American people. As I
mentioned earlier, the existing IHS facility at Winnebago is over 70
years old and I would venture to comment that there are probably not
very many full-service hospitals in this country serving non-Indians
that have reached that not-so-venerable age. It is a shame and the
shame rests mostly with the failure of the United States to fulfill its
obligations to this country's first Americans.
the land and water conservation fund
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to clarify with the
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member the process, as described
on page 116 in the Senate Committee Report on the Interior
Appropriations bill (S. Report 105-56), for the expenditure of land and
water conservation fund dollars provided in this legislation. Is this
Senator correct in his understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee
intends to work with the Appropriations Committee in the other body and
the administration to develop a list of projects to be funded with the
remainder of $700 million in land and water conservation fund moneys
that are not allocated in this legislation for either specific Federal
projects or for the States?
Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Is it the case that the administration will begin
developing this list as soon as possible?
Mr. GORTON. Again, the Senator is correct. After the list is
developed it will be provided to the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee and the relevant subcommittee in the other body for their
review and approval.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the Senator feel that it would be appropriate for
Senators to contact Interior line agencies if they are aware of
projects they believe are meritorious, such as the Fish and Wildlife
Service's proposed Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge in my home
State of Wisconsin?
Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct, and indeed,
Senators are contacting appropriate Interior line agencies to make them
aware of projects as well as officials within the administration.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the senior Senator from West Virginia concur with
the Senator from Washington and myself?
Mr. BYRD. I do, and I thank the Senator for seeking additional
clarification. It is common practice for Senators to assist Interior
agencies by bringing particular projects to their attention so that the
agencies may have the benefit of evaluating these projects for
potential inclusion on the list.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the managers
of the bill for their hard work in putting forth legislation which
provides necessary funding for many things from National Parks to the
Bureau of Mines. The Interior Appropriations bill is the 12th of the 13
appropriations bills to come before the Senate this year.
Unfortunately, once again, this bill and the report language
accompanying it contain numerous earmarks and pork barrel spending
projects. I ask unanimous consent that a list of eight pages of
objectionable provisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Objectionable Provisions in The Fiscal Year 1998 Interior
Appropriations Bill
Bill Language
$2,043,000 for the assessment of the mineral potential of
public lands in Alaska.
Unspecified amount for the maintenance of a long-horned
cattle herd on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.
$11,612,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to construct
fishery mitigation facilities on the Lower Snake River.
$2 million for local governments in Southern California for
Natural Communities Conservation Planning.
$500,000 for the Darwin Mountain House in Buffalo, NY, and
$500,000 for the Penn Center in South Carolina.
$3 million for the Hispanic Cultural Center in New Mexico
and $1 million for the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, both
subject to authorization.
Language prohibiting the relocation of the Brooks River
Lodge in the Katmai National Park and Preserve located in
Alaska.
Directed transfer of the Bowden National Fish Hatchery from
the United States to the State of West Virginia (without
payment by the state) to be used by the West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources.
Language establishing a commission to assist the city of
Berlin, NH in identifying and studying the Androscoggin River
Valley's ``historical and cultural assets'', accompanied by
an authorization of $50,000 for operating expenses of the
commission.
$800,000 for the World Forestry Center to continue research
into land exchanges in the Umpqua River Basin region in
Oregon.
Language specifying the relocation of Region 10 of the
Forest Service to Ketchikan, AK, and reference to transfers
and closures of other offices in Alaska directed in the
report language.
Language dictating that not more than one quarter of the
amount of hardwood harvested in 1989 may be cut from the
Wayne National Forest in Ohio in 1998, and requiring that
landscape architects must be used to ``maintain a visually
pleasing forest''.
[[Page S9614]]
Language stating that Forest Service funds shall be
available to counties within the Columbia Gorge National
Scenic Area in Washington state.
Language stating that Forest Service funds shall be
available for payments to Del Norte County, CA.
Earmark of unspecified funds for research on extraction,
processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without
objectionable social and environmental costs, performed by
the Albany Research Center in Oregon.
Language requiring compliance with all ``Buy America''
provisions.
Language prohibiting the use of any funds to demolish the
bridge between Jersey City, NJ and Ellis Island.
Language authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to limit competition for watershed restoration
projects in Washington, Oregon, and northern California to
individuals and entities in historically timber dependent
areas in those states that have been affected by reduced
timber harvesting on federal lands.
Language mandating the transfer of the Wind River Nursery
in Gifford Pinchot National Forest, WA to Skamania County,
WA, in exchange for 120 acres of the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area.
Language exempting certain residents in specified areas
from having to pay user fees for access to the White Mountain
National Forest in New Hampshire.
Earmarks of Land and Water Conservation Funds for the New
World Mines project ($65 million), the Headwaters Forest
agreement ($100 million), acquisition of the Elwha and Glines
dams in Washington, and acquisition of the Sterling Forest in
New York ($8.5 million).
report language
Earmarks totaling $6.4 million for the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, UT as follows:
$1,330,000 increase under land resources.
$300,000 increase under wildlife and fisheries.
$270,000 increase under threatened and endangered species.
$1,150,000 increase under recreation management.
$150,000 increase under energy and minerals.
$300,000 increase under realty and ownership management.
$1,050,000 increase under resource protection and
maintenance.
BLM is to allocate all recommended funds to the Utah State
office and the project office assigned responsibility for the
monument. Report language prohibits reprogramming of funds
from these lines.
$100,000 for Alaska Gold Rush Centennial Task Force.
$500,000 for Department of Defense to develop habitat
mitigation plans in Alaska.
$350,000 for the Virgin River Basin, UT.
$400,000 for Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and
related projects.
$500,000 add-on to allow BLM to process oil and gas lease
applications in Alaska, Arizona and Idaho.
$700,000 for additional library support to Alaska Resources
Library and Information Services Consortium to develop
digital online library resources and data bases in Alaska,
development and implement a plan to protect records at the
Geologic Material Center in Eagle River, and develop a data
base for mining claims.
Language earmaring funding at FY 97 levels (plus fixed
costs and requiring FY 97 levels of employees to continue
Alaska cadastral surveys and complete the transfer of 155
million acres of federal land in Alaska to state, Native
villages, and individuals.
$700,000 to fund a type I hotshot crew for wildland fire
management in Alaska.
$1,925,000 for redevelopment of Interior interagency fire
operations center in Billings, MT.
Earmark for land acquisitions as follows:
$900,000 for Lake Fork of the Gunnison, CO.
$1,100,000 for Otay Mountains/Kuchamaa, CA.
$1,000,000 for Santa Rosa Mountains, CA.
$2,000,000 for Washington Cunty desert tortise, UT.
$1,000,000 for Western Riverside County, CA.
$400,000 for Alabama sturgeon conservation efforts, and
$560,000 for Iron County habitat conservation plan, WI.
Earmark for habitat conservations as follows:
$600,000 for Middle Rio Grande (Bosque) Program.
$200,000 for Platte River studies, CO.
$1,131,000 for Chicago Wetlands Office.
$200,000 increase for Yukon River escapement monitoring and
research, AK, and $400,000 for Alaska salmon conservation.
$578,000 for the Great Lakes initiative related to
fisheries.
$1,000,000 for The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and
$200,000 for the Caddo Lake Institute, TX.
Add-ons for construction projects as follows:
$600,000 for dike repair of Bear River National Wildlife
Refuge, UT.
$335,000 for an Administrative building at Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge, MD.
$425,000 to replace the boardwalk at Horicon National
Wildlife Refuge, WI.
$1,000,000 for rehabilitation at John Hay Estate, NH.
$1,000,000 for complete construction of Keauhou Bird
Conservation Center, HI.
$480,000 for access trail and public use facility
rehabilitation for Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, AK.
$702,000 to replace bridges at Mingo National Wildlife
Refuge, MO.
$400,000 to replace irrigation system at National Elk
Refuge, WY.
$2,000,000 for Mora hatchery at Southwest Fisheries
Technology Center, NM.
$840,000 for trail construction and access at Steigerwald
National Wildlife Refuge, WA.
$12,732,000 add-on in land acquisition, for a total of
$57,292,000, which is all earmarked for specific projects
[see page 27 of report].
$100,000 for Park Service trails office in support of Lewis
and Clark National Historic Trail activities, and $400,000
for technical assistance along the Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trial.
$200,000 for support of the Selma to Montgomery National
Historic Trail and the California and Pony Express National
Historic Trails.
$100,000 earmarks for the Park Service to establish a
Katmai National Park and Preserve satellite office on Kodiak
Island, AK.
Earmarks of recreation and preservation funds for:
$100,000 add-on for Aleutian World War II National Historic
Area.
$324,000 extra for Blackstone River Corridor Heritage
Commission.
$829,000 extra for Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal.
$238,000 extra for Illinois and Michigan Canal National
Heritage Corridor Commission.
$65,000 extra for lower Mississippi Delta.
$200,000 extra for Quinebaug-Shetucket National Heritage
Corridor Commission.
$758,000 extra for Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage
Preservation Commission.
$285,000 extra for Vancouver National Historic Reserve.
$480,000 extra for Wheeling National Heritage Area.
Earmarks of National Park Service construction funds for
unrequested projects, as follows:
$2,200,000 to construct the Alaska Native Heritage Center,
AK.
$500,000 for directional signs, et cetera at Blackstone
River Valley national Historic Commission, MA/RI.
$2,000,000 to move the lighthouse at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, NC.
$500,000 to construct a storage facility at the Center for
Archeological Studies, AL.
$500,000 to design and engineer the C&O Canal National
Historical Park, MD.
$500,000 for restoration of the Darwin Martin House, NY.
$250,000 for Fort Jefferson rehabilitation at Dry Tortugas
National Park, FL.
$3,000,000 for a multiagency center with BLM at El Malpais
National Monument, NM.
$3,400,000 for rehabilitation of Fort Smith National
Historic Site, AR.
$2,860,000 for site development at Fort Sumter National
Monument, SC.
$750,000 for facilities planning at Gauley National
Recreation Area, WV.
$700,000 to rehabilitate facilities and monuments at
Gettysburg National Military Park, PA.
$1,731,000 for wastewater treatment at Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve, AK.
$3,000,000 for an arts center at the Hispanic Cultural
Center, NM.
$500,000 for the stabilization and lead paint for Hot
Springs National Park, AR.
$200,000 for the rehabilitation of Katmai National Park and
Preserve, AK.
$300,000 for an interagency facility at Kenai Fjords
National Park, AK.
$310,000 for the repair of fences at Manzanar National
Historic Site, CA.
$8,000,000 for road construction at Natchez Trace Parkway,
MS.
$153,000 for roof repair and access at New Bedford Whaling
National Historical Park MA.
$2,525,000 for access and trails stabilization at New River
Gorge National River, WV.
$1,000,000 for construction of Oklahoma City Memorial, OK.
$500,000 for the rehabilitation of Penn Center, SC.
$1,000,000 for Corinth Battlefield interpretive center at
Shiloh National Military Park, MS.
$510,000 for the joint administrative facility with Forest
Service at Timpanogos Cave National Monument, UT.
$2,223,000 for the planning, compliance, and restoration of
Vancouver National Historical Reserve, WA.
$2,595,000 for the rehabilitation of Vicksburg National
Military Park, MS.
$400,000 for the design interpretive center at Wrangell-
St. Elias National Park and Preserve, AK.
$54,790,000 add-on for land acquisition, for a total of
$125,690,000, almost all of which is earmarked [see page 39
of report].
$900,000 for the Great Salt Lake basins study unit of the
NAWQA, including a plan for the collection of water quality
data.
$1,000,000 for restoration of the Great Lake fisheries and
habitats, $500,000 for Pacific salmon studies, and $1,000,000
for endocrine disruption research.
$500,000 for the establishment of a fine hardwoods tree
improvement and regeneration center at Purdue University.
Language directs the Forest Service to initiate a study
regarding the establishment of a harvesting and wood
utilization laboratory in Sitka, AK.
$500,000 for a multiparty task force to create an action
plan to manage spruce bark beetle infestations and
rehabilitate infested areas in Alaska.
$200,000 to strengthen the role of the Forest Service in
assisting the Hardwoods Training
[[Page S9615]]
Center in Princeton in becoming economically self-sustaining.
$800,000 add-on for land exchanges between willing public
and private owners in the Umpqua River basin, OR.
$68,400 add-on for creating and maintaining scenic vistas
along the Talimena Scenic Byway.
$360,000 for planning an office and laboratory facility to
house the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry research and
public outreach program.
$4,000,000 for reconstruction of the Oakridge ranger
station on the Willamette National Forest, OR.
$1,200,000 for the Federal share of construction of the
Pikes Peak Summit House, CO.
$427,000 for construction of restroom facilities at Lee
Canyon and Tahoe Meadows.
$445,000 for construction of a visitor contact station and
administrative site on Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma.
$725,000 for reconstruction of infrastructure facilities at
Waldo Lake on the Willamette National Forest, OR.
$1,214,000 for construction of new facilities and the
rehabilitation of existing facilities in the venues of the
2002 Winter Olympic games.
Language used to direct Forest Service to prepare a report
which allows for providing road access from Wrangell to
Canada and to Ketchikan.
$1,300,000 for construction of portions of the Continental
Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado.
Increase of $8,119,000 for land acquisition, for a total of
$49,176,000, most of which is earmarked [see report p. 80].
$625,000 for acquisition of the Cannard tract at the
Columbia River Gorge.
$2,000,000 increase over the budget request for mining
programs, earmarked for the Intermountain Center for Mining
Research and Development.
Mr. McCAIN. Some of the earmarked projects funded in this bill have
merit--I do not dispute that. What I do object to is the process by
which these funds are appropriated. Earmarking Federal tax dollars is a
process which can no longer be tolerated in these times of fiscal
restraint.
It is unfair to the American taxpayer that we allow this to continue.
It is not right that we require the American taxpayer to foot the bill
for landscape architects to ``maintain a visually pleasing forest'' in
the Wayne National Forest in Ohio as this bill dictates. Why is it
necessary to have hard working Americans pay nearly $2 million for the
redevelopment of a fire operations center in Billings, MT?
As I stated previously, Mr. President, these projects may have merit
and may be very important--but how do we know that? Have they ever had
a hearing? Have these projects ever been competitively bid? The answer,
sadly, is no.
Mr. President, I will not take any more of the Senate's time voicing
my objections. I will close by saying that I truly hope we can bring an
end to the practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations process.
The American taxpayer deserves better than the wasteful spending that
we have seen in these twelve appropriations bills.
u.s. mand and biosphere program
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to
engage Senator Gorton in a discussion of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program. As the Senator is aware, the House of Representatives, by a
vote of 222 to 203, on July 15, 1997 passed the appropriations bill for
the Department of the Interior. Included as part of that legislation
was an amendment which prohibits funding for the U.S. Man and Biosphere
Program. Although a similar provision has not been included as part of
the Senate deliberations on this appropriation, I offer the following
argument for its inclusion in the upcoming conference between the House
and Senate.
Many of my colleagues may question exactly what the U.S. Man and the
Biosphere Program is. After all you will not find it mentioned in any
line item within this bill, nor will you find it housed in any of the
agencies which receive appropriations under this bill. The U.S. Man and
the Biosphere Program or USMAB operates through the State Department
and under the guidance of the United Nations Educational and Scientific
Organization [UNESCO] to designate tracts of American land as biosphere
reserves. These areas are ``voluntarily'' subject to land management
requirements designated to facilitate ecological research and
preservation. Currently, there are 47 biospheres in the United States
covering a land area approximately the size of Colorado, our eighth
largest state. Some biospheres, such as the Land Between the Lakes
Biosphere in Kentucky, include populated areas with over 484,000
residents.
Despite the size and breadth of this program it has never been
authorized by Congress, yet it is still 100% taxpayer funded. It is
supported through interagency transfers from a total of thirteen
different agencies. Collectively, these agencies contributed $210,000
to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program in Fiscal Year 1997.
While the total value associated with this program may fly well below
many of our radar screens, the question and problems associated with
the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program are very real and very much in
the minds of our constituents.
While I was serving in the House, some of my constituents brought to
my attention a proposal by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program to
create the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative, which would have
encompassed part of my home state of Arkansas as well as part of the
states of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. As I began to investigate
this proposal some of the very worst fears of my constituents were
confirmed. The ``voluntary, honorary'' land designation represented a
potential threat to the private property rights of my constituents. For
example, on page 120 of the Feasibility Study for the Ozark Man and the
Biosphere appeared the following statement, ``Normally, there is no
need for change in land-holding or regulation following the designation
of a biosphere reserve except where changes are required to ensure the
strict protection of the core area or specific research sites.''
Perhaps what was even more frightening was this biosphere was being
created in secret. The steering committee responsible for attempting to
create the Ozark biosphere admitted in their feasibility study that
they ``decided that public meetings would not be part of the interview
process because such meetings tend to polarize views of the public and
may capture negative attention from the press.'' (Page 43 of the
Feasibility study)
Many individuals will undoubtedly wonder how this was possible. Under
what legislative authority did the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program
undertake these initiatives? The answer is that there is no legislative
authority. Congress has never passed any law creating the U.S. Man and
the Biosphere Program authorizing them to engage in their activities.
Even the web page for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program admits
that ``No specific law exists for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program.''
Proponents of this program will undoubtedly assert that my experience
was an isolated incident, and it was for the very reasons I cited that
the area around the Ozarks was never finally designated a Biosphere
Reserve. However, I would urge these individuals to look at the
testimony presented before the House Resources Committee this year,
where local officials repeatedly testified that they were never
consulted about proposals to create biosphere reserves in their areas.
I would encourage the proponents of this program to look to the Alaska
and Colorado State Legislatures and the Kentucky State Senate, all of
which passed resolutions opposing the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program, despite the fact that there are currently three biospheres in
Alaska, four in Colorado, and two in Kentucky. To date, the U.S. Man
and the Biosphere Program has taken no action to address the concerns
of these State and local officials.
This is not to say that the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has
not produced some positive contributions to our understanding of the
environment and mans relationship to it. However, until my questions,
the questions, of my constituents, the questions of the State
Legislatures, and the questions of many of our colleagues are answered,
I in good conscience cannot support using one more tax dollar in
support of this program.
It is for these above stated reasons that I ask that the House
adopted language be included in the Conference report.
I thank Senator Gorton, for the opportunity to present this very
important issue for Conference consideration.
Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Arkansas bringing his
concerns to my attention, and they will
[[Page S9616]]
have considerable weight with me when the House presents its position
in Conference.
Use of BIA Funds for Marty Indian School
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me thank the distinguished
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished
ranking Democrat, Senator Byrd, for their leadership and hard work on
this legislation. I appreciate their willingness to work with me and
Senator Johnson to provide greatly needed assistance to the Marty
Indian School in our state.
In the past, the Marty School has received funds sufficient to
replace its decaying high school facility. However, the elementary
school is 70 years old and is in serious need of immediate repairs. The
facility is not suitable to serve the educational needs of its students
safely. Recently, a piece of the ceiling in one of the elementary
school's buildings crashed onto the desk of a young student.
Fortunately, there were no injuries. However, the serious physical
problems at the school continue to pose a significant threat to its
students. It is clear that eventually the entire elementary school will
need to be replaced.
Senator Johnson and I would like to ask if it is the intent of the
committee that the report language that refers to the Marty Indian
School, found on page 55 of the Committee Report, gives direction to
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assess the serious structural
deficiencies, particularly those that could compromise the health and
safety of the elementary school students, and to endeavor to provide
funds from the emergency or minor repair programs of the Facility
Improvement and Repair program to correct these problems at the
earliest possible date?
Mr. GORTON. That is the committee's intention to the extent high
priority requirements are identified and prioritized.
Mr. BYRD. That is my understanding.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for adding that language to the report.
While we are delighted that these emergency repairs will be made if
identified as a priority, we wish to note that the BIA has determined
that the entire Marty facility needs to be replaced because it is no
longer economically feasible merely to shore up these very old
structures. Senator Daschle and I are delighted that the replacement
high school is now being constructed. However, before long the
elementary school facilities must also be replaced. I recognize the
shortage of Facilities Improvement and Repair funds. Senator Daschle
and I would like to work with the committee and the BIA to place the
Marty Indian School elementary school on the priority list for future
replacement funds when that list is opened up.
Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and look
forward to working with you on this issue. I am proud of the Marty
Indian School. Under the leadership of School Board President, Mike
Redlightning, and past President Robert Cournoyer and the other Board
Members, the school has a wonderful working relationship with the
Yankton Sioux Tribal Council. Support for the Marty Indian School
indeed is strong among the Yankton Sioux people.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member
and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a brief history
of the Marty Indian School that has served the Yankton Sioux people of
the Marty area so well for so long.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Marty Indian School
school background and history
Marty Indian School is owned and operated by the Yankton
Sioux Tribe. The Marty Indian School is a legal entity of the
Yankton Sioux Tribal Business and Claims Committee and is
authorized to operate, maintain and administer Marty's
educational programs on behalf of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
The school is located on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in
southeast South Dakota near the South Dakota/Nebraska border
four miles east of the Missouri River and 13 miles southwest
of Wagner, South Dakota. The original Yankton Sioux Nation
consisted of about two thirds of the portion of South Dakota
lying east of the Missouri River. The original reservation
consisted of 400,000 acres established by the treaty of 1858.
Tribal enrollment for both on and off reservation Yanktons is
over 7,000. Marty Indian School serves Students in grades K-
12 in their Instructional programs. The school also operates
a dormitory program for students in grades 6-12. Of the 796
school age children living on the reservation in 1994-1995,
290 or 38.94% of those children attended Marty Indian School.
The remaining students attending The Wagner and Lake Andes
public schools.
Marty Indian School, formerly known as St. Paul's Indian
Mission, began in 1926 by a missionary priest from Indiana,
Father Sylvester Eisenmann, O.S.B. The leaders of the Yankton
Dakota people wanted formal education for their children
because they realized that change was coming for the Yankton
Tribe. In April, 1921, three of these leaders, Thunder Horse,
Edward Yellow Bird, and David Zephier made their trek to St.
Meinrad Abby in southern Indiana to request that Father
Sylvester be assigned as the permanent missionary on their
reservation. They camped on the lawn of the Abby until the
abbot agreed to their plea.
When Father Sylvester first came to the present site of
Marty Indian School, he built a two story school building and
a chapel. He named the mission after Martin Marty, the first
South Dakota Roman Catholic Bishop. Osotewin--Smoke Woman--
(to become know as Grandma White Tallow) donated the land for
the new school and the farms needed to support it. The school
was built building after building as the demand for space
grew and funds were collected. Since its inception, through
the labor of many devoted workers, Marty Indian School's
campus has grown to include twenty-seven buildings on thirty
beautifully landscaped acres.
In its early days, the students learned a great deal from
doing. During various construction phases, the students
worked on the building projects for half of the day, and went
to school the other half. There was a shoe shop on the
campus, a printing shop where the bilingual newspaper was
published, and the school ran a farming operation.
In March 1975, the ownership of Marty Indian School was
transferred to the Yankton Sioux Tribe from the Benedictine
Fathers of Blue Cloud Abby. Since that time, the school has
been operated by the Marty Indian School Board of Education.
Marty has continuously maintained full academic accreditation
with exemplary ratings from the State of South Dakota
Department of Education.
In the fall of 1994, Marty entered the Effective Schools
Program. Since that time a new mission statement has been
adopted which involves parents and staff. A comprehensive
survey was completed. In-service training has been held on
learning styles and teaching strategies. An in-service
concerning centering on the issue of restructuring the school
was held for all teaching and dorm staff in August of
1995. A curriculum committee consisting of representatives
from the community, tribal education office,
administration and teaching staff has been meeting for two
years to make curriculum more relevant to students and
increase student learning. This last year a Tribal
Education Code was adopted by the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
In 1995, the Tribe was presented with the Lyle Richards
Memorial Award for exemplary service to Indian children by
the South Dakota Indian Education Association. Two middle
teacher, Carrie Ackerman-Rice and Cynthia Goter, were named
Middle school teachers of the year. Dorothy Kiyukan, the
Intensive Residential Guidance Program Director, was named
National and State Indian Educator of the year in 1994. Karen
White Horse was honored as Home Living Specialist of the Year
in 1991 by the National Indian School Board Association.
For the last year, the SET Team (School Effectiveness
Team), and Curriculum Committee have been gathering data to
assess the direction of the school. The school plans to break
ground on a new educational building in the spring of 1996.
Plans include incorporation of the latest state-of-the-art
technology. Many curriculum changes are needed as the school
moves from text based curriculum to outcome based education,
with academic and behavioral objectives.
educational philosophy
The educational philosophy of the Marty Indian School has
evolved since its inception. The school was founded because
the community leaders wanted education for their children to
prepare for the changes which they saw coming. The current
leaders of the school recognize the acceleration of change in
the world in which they live, and hold to the original basic
tenet of the founders--the education of their youth is vital
to the future of their culture and way of life.
mission statement
The Mission of the Marty Indian School, in partnership with
the Yankton Sioux Tribe and its communities, is to offer a
safe supportive environment: to provide intellectual, social,
and cultural values needed to prepare our students for a
multi-cultural Circle of Life; and to instill self discipline
and respect for self and others.
education
We believe that Marty should serve the educational needs of
all students. The educational needs of the students include
self-development in spiritual and moral values, in
intellectual insight, emotional stability, effective human
relations, and physical fitness. A special need of Marty
students is the awareness, understanding, appreciation and
enrichment of their nature culture, and being free of alcohol
and other drugs.
[[Page S9617]]
We believe that Marty should serve the educational needs of
the adult Indians in the area and encourage community
involvement in the educational opportunities available at
Marty. It is our philosophy that Marty is the educational
center for the Yankton Sioux Reservation. We believe that
true education on any level is the instilling of the desire
for continued learning through the development of a healthy
curiosity, active interest, and enlivened ambition.
STUDENTS
It is the philosophy of Marty to provide a safe and secure
learning and living environment to Marty students K-12. The
objectives are: To assume full responsibility for all
students--including their conduct, safety and presence--
during the time they are in attendance, in class or residing
in the dormitories; and to provide accountability standards
by establishing and enforcing adequate student check out
procedures.
COMMUNITY
It is the responsibility of Marty that the operation of
Marty is the responsibility of the Indian people themselves.
We believe that the successful operation of Marty depends on
the quality of service and the dedication of the people who
administer the various programs at Marty. We also believe
that Marty is the social service center the people of the
area, and the facilities and personnel of Marty are valuable
resources for effective educational projects and human
relations program.
Objectives for the betterment of student dormitory life
are: to provide training programs to the dormitory staff by
developing a regular course of instruction and a
comprehensive in-service schedule in which each staff member
will learn the necessary techniques in providing a safe
domiciliary environment.
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
Marty has as its goal the total education of its students
at Marty and the self-improvement of the people in the local
area. In order to accomplish this goal, objectives are
delineated in regard to education: Marty will maintain an
accredited school for grades K-12. As facilities and staff
are available, the specific needs of Indian students will be
served.
nps gateways funding
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
manager of the bill in a colloquy concerning the funding for National
Park Service natural programs and the Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program.
It is my understanding that the FY 98 Interior Appropriations Bill
provides an increase of $1 million for the RTCA program, and that the
Committee has directed that this increase be specifically applied to
activities within the scope of the existing program, not to new
initiatives.
Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. In FY 97, the committee provided $200,000 from the RTCA
account for the National Park Service's Chesapeake Bay Program Office
to implement its Chesapeake Bay Action Agenda. The Committee's support
enhanced NPS's ability to provide important financial and technical
assistance to communities and organizations implementing their
watershed protection, heritage area or heritage tourism strategic
plans. These projects are terrific examples of community-led
conservation, interpretation and preservation efforts that complement
other Chesapeake Bay Program activities and illustrate NPS's unique
role as a formal participant in the Bay Program.
I note in the Committee report that a number of worthy projects have
been mentioned as deserving of continued funding from this program. I
would ask the Senator whether NPS Chesapeake Bay Program Office
activities would also qualify as a continuing project to receive
funding from RTCA.
Mr. GORTON. Most certainly--The project the Senator describes appears
to be a good example of the type of work intended to be funded with the
additional funding provided by the Committee.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the Chairman's observations and
encourage the National Park Service to continue its support of this
effort.
blue pike study (Usgs)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose
of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the fish known as the blue
pike.
Mr. President, the blue pike was officially declared extinct in 1983
under the Endangered Species Act. This highly valued species, prized
for food and sport, prospered in Lakes Erie and Ontario prior to its
disappearance in these lakes. But recently, I have been made aware of
reports from the Erie, PA area that the blue pike can still be found in
Canadian lakes. It this is so, we have an exceptional opportunity to
bring a species back from the brink of extinction.
Mr. President, I would suggest that the Biological Resources Division
of the U.S. Geological Survey consider investigating the existence of
the blue pike. The Chairman has shown excellent judgment in
recommending a bill which includes a $1 million increase for
restoration of the Great Lakes fisheries and habitats in this
legislation, and I think this is an appropriate area where this
important work can be carried out. I am advised that this study and
restoration plan could cost $250,000. This is a small price to pay to
realize the economic and environmental benefits this study, if
successful, would surely produce. Accordingly, I look forward to
working with my colleague from Washington to address the blue pike
issue.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania. I agree that the blue pike study deserves thorough
consideration by the U.S. Geological Survey.
ensuring adequate law enforcement services on the yankton sioux
reservation
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Johnson and I have recently been
informed of two urgent matters on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in
South Dakota that require immediate attention. The boundaries of the
Yankton Reservation are the subject of an ongoing legal dispute.
Although the final status of the case will be resolved in the coming
year by the Supreme Court, lower court decisions have already
transferred criminal jurisdiction over tribal members within the
disputed boundaries of the reservation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. As a
result, the tribe's patrol area has increased from 38,000 acres to
400,000 acres and the number of arrests and detentions by the tribe has
tripled. The cost of providing these law enforcement services has
correspondingly increased from $56,000 to $308,721. We are informed the
tribe is in need of $250,000 to accommodate these increased costs.
Mr. JOHNSON. In addition, the reservation's juvenile detention center
is undergoing a much needed, year-long renovation that has required the
tribe to find alternative housing for the residents of the facility.
The annual cost of placing the up to 20 juveniles the tribe houses per
day in alternative facilities will cost at least $400,000. These
resources cannot be found within the tribe's existing budget. Absent
additional resources, Bureau of Land Affairs [BIA] officials state the
tribe will be forced to release some offenders into the community and
borrow money in order to incarcerate the most violent offenders.
Mr. DASCHLE. It is our hope that BIA funds can be made available to
the tribe for these pressing law enforcement needs during fiscal year
1998. If there is special consideration for the funding requirements of
underfunded tribes pursuant to section 118 of this bill, would you
agree that the BIA should consider providing up to $650,000 to the
Yankton Sioux Tribe for these purposes?
Mr. BYRD. I agree that these are two serious problems. The Yankon
Sioux Tribe is struggling to maintain adequate law enforcement services
and provide housing for juveniles in the criminal justice system. If
additional funds are available through the TPA program, then the tribe
is encouraged to identify these requirements as a priority in its
allocation of funds.
Mr. GORTON. I agree as well. I recognize that funds are not available
in the tribe's existing budget to accommodate these responsibilities.
It is clear that alternative housing must be provided for juveniles in
the criminal justice system while the existing detention facility is
being renovated. These additional requirements should be considered in
the allocation of TPA funds.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
assistance.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the colleagues for their attention to this
important problem, and ask unanimous consent that a letter from Timothy
Lake of the BIA providing additional details about these problems be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S9618]]
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Yankton Agency,
Wagner, S.D., September 11, 1997.
Senator Tom Daschle,
317 Hart Senate Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: This is in response to your request
for information as it relates to the existing reservation
boundary decision and its impacts on juvenile and adult
detention.
First, the decision created an increase in Federal and
Tribal jurisdiction. Prior to June, 1995, we were exercising
criminal jurisdiction on 38,000 acres of trust land. The
State of South Dakota was asserting its jurisdiction on all
fee lands within the boundary. The reservation boundary
consist of 400,000 acres of land. Since June 1995, we have
been exercising jurisdiction over all Indians within the
400,000 acre reservation. As you can see, our area has
increased 10 fold. Much of the crime is committed in the
cities of Wagner, Lake Andes, Dante and Pickstown. These
cities were previously handled by city and county law
enforcement.
Our adult prisoner care is contracted with Charles Mix
County, and Lower Brule Agency. To illustrate a impact is to
look at the previous year before the decision from June, 1994
to June 1995. We had a total of 672 arrest and prisoner
detention cost of $56,000.00. The first year after the
decision (June 1995 through June 1996) shows us arresting
2,078 and detention cost of $308,721.00. Another interesting
illustration is the road miles we previously patrolled. The
BIA had 22 miles and now we patrol 314 miles within the
reservation.
The Yankton Sioux Tribe was operating a juvenile hold-over
facility that was not intended for long term juvenile
detention but turned out that way. The Tribe was fortunate to
receive a grant (1.3 million) from the Justice Department to
renovate their hold-over facility to an approved juvenile
detention center. The Tribe was incurring the expense at
$250,000.00 per year to house juveniles.
Because of liability concerns, lack of funding, and the
renovation project, the Tribe closed the facility at the end
of August. The facility should be fully approved and
operational by October 1998. We now have no where on the
reservations to house juvenile offenders. I have made
arrangements with the juvenile detention facility at Kyle,
South Dakota. They will house ten of our juveniles at a rate
of $50.00 per day per juvenile. This equates to a cost of
$182,500.00 per year. The daily average of juveniles that the
Tribe was holding in their hold-over facility was 20.
I will need to locate another juvenile facility to hold the
balance. I am sure the cost to house the remaining juveniles
at another facility will be more costly than the Kyle, SD
facility. We must also deal with the time, manpower and
vehicle cost to run these juveniles to Kyle and wherever. It
is easy to see that we can spend $400,000.00 a year on
juvenile detention. Once the Tribe's renovation project is
completed, we must begin to pay the cost to house our
juvenile offenders at their facility.
There are four (4) full-time FIA police officers at this
agency. The Yankton Sioux Tribe was successful in securing
six (6) additional officers through the Justice Department
COPS Fast program. However, COPS fast funds can only be used
for salaries so we have to provide these officers with
equipment as well as vehicles to patrol.
As the Yankton Sioux Tribe has communicated to you, the
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) process does not allow for
such a large increase to our law enforcement program. We can
not maintain our fiduciary responsibility by decreasing all
reservation programs by $650,000.00 and increasing law
enforcement by this amount. The whole reservation TPA budget
for fiscal year 97 if 1.6 million. The Tribe will need these
funds added to its TPA base.
I hope I have answered your inquiry to your satisfaction. I
appreciate the interest that you have shown on the impacts of
the reservation boundary decision.
Sincerely,
Timothy C. Lake,
Superintendent.
bureau of indian affairs funding for the northwest indian fisheries
commission and other issues
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, much tribal management of salmon
resources in western Washington State is conducted through the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Historically, the Commission
received its funding directly from the Bureau of Indian Affairs under
the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty
accounts under trust accounts. Beginning five years ago, however, a
portion of these monies was re-routed for administrative purposes
within the BIA system, passing through the Tribal/Agency Operations,
Tribal Priority Allocation line item in the BIA appropriation. This
system worked fine for several years, but funding reductions to Tribal/
Agency Operations in recent years have resulted in an approximately 13
percent cut to these accounts. Now these funds are being rerouted back
to the original line items of Western Washington--Boldt Implementation
and Pacific Salmon Treaty in the trust accounts, but at the reduced
level.
Since both the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific
Salmon Treaty accounts were only included in the Tribal Priority
Allocations system for administrative, pass-through purposes, it is
inappropriate for these line items to be continued at only the reduced
level. Full funding for these accounts should be restored. Congress did
not reduce funding for the trust accounts. In addition, Congress has
annually adopted the Pacific Salmon Treaty budget as developed by the
U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, and at no time has this
funding been reduced. Also, within the FY-98 funding levels, Tribal
Priority Allocations are being restored, but not the Western
Washington--Boldt Implementation or Pacific Salmon Treaty funds. These
factors provide significant justification for restoring these subject
funds in the FY-98 budget. While the trust account budget is now set,
the BIA may utilize appropriate funds from another account, such as
Tribal Priority Allocations, to fully fund these important programs of
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I agree, the BIA should have the ability
to restore funding for the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and
Pacific Salmon Treaty accounts from Tribal Priority Allocations. In
addition, I suggest that the BIA and the Department of Interior modify
their budget proposal for the next fiscal year to ensure that the trust
account includes full funding for Western Washington--Boldt
Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the House Committee Report (105-163) for
the Interior Appropriations bill recommends that within the $3,000,000
provided for the ``jobs in the woods'' initiative under non-recurring
programs, Operation of Indian Programs, $400,000 should continue to be
used by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for the Wildstock
Restoration Initiative. Although the Senate Committee Report does not
mention this account, does the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the
distinguished Senior Senator from Washington, agree with the guidance
of House Committee Report?
Mr. GORTON. The ``jobs in the woods'' initiative is an important
program for displaced timber workers in western Washington. The
Wildstock Restoration Initiative is a key component of the overall
initiative. I will support efforts in the Conference Committee to
secure funding for the Wildstock Restoration Initiative.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate Committee Report on this
appropriations measure directs the Bureau of Indian Affairs on page 52
of the report to include a private sector representative on the BIA
task force to implement recommendations of an Inspector General's audit
of the Wapato Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation. In
addition to this representative, it was the Chairman's and my intention
to also include a representative of the Yakama Indian Nation on the
task force.
Mr. GORTON. That is correct. The BIA task force on the Wapato
Irrigation District should include a private sector representative and
a tribal representative.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his cooperation.
kaiparowits coal basin
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from
Washington, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd, that it seems to me, in light of the scientific
disagreements between the recently conducted BXG findings and the
ongoing data collection and analysis by the Utah Geological Survey,
there is sufficient reason to revisit the BXG study regarding the
Kaiparowits Coal Basin located in the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. Do my colleagues from Washington and West Virginia
agree that the significant disparate findings of these studies warrant
additional review before the BXG work is accepted as fact?
Mr. GORTON. In view of some of the concerns which have been raised,
BLM should consider working with all the experts, including the Utah
Geological
[[Page S9619]]
Survey, to ensure that there is an accurate reading of the current and
future state of the Kaiparowits Plateau coal.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I share the sentiments expressed by the
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleagues for their responses.
allegheny national forest (USFS)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose
of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the Allegheny National Forest in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. President, I would suggest that the U.S. Forest Service consider
the possibility of funding the following three projects, all of which
would enhance visitors' experiences in the Allegheny National Forest.
The first project is for the construction of a central office in
Marienville, Pennsylvania. For more than a decade, the Allegheny
National Forest has requested funding to carry out this project.
Currently, Allegheny National Forest Service employees work out of two
small office buildings, a trailer, and two warehouses located
separately from the district office. Construction of a central office
will help alleviate additional travel and communications costs as well
as improve the efficiencies in work coordination.
The second project involves the rehabilitation of three boat-access
campgrounds on the Allegheny Reservoir. These sites were constructed in
the 1960s, but they have each outlived their expected life spans.
Completion of this project would go a long way to improving access for
the estimated 11,800 visitors who use these campsites each year.
The last project concerns rehabilitation of the Buckaloons Recreation
Area. This area is located within the designated Wild and Scenic River
corridor of the Allegheny River. I am advised that visitors' complaints
focus on water facilities, parking, and access to the area. The funds
needed for this project would improve the Buckaloons Recreation Area to
allow Pennsylvanians and others to more fully enjoy the Allegheny
National Forest.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from
Washington to address these three important funding issues.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania. I am aware of the importance of the Allegheny National
Forest to Pennsylvania and I believe that these three projects deserve
thorough consideration by the U.S. Forest Service. Accordingly, I
intend to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania to secure funding for
these important rehabilitation projects in the Allegheny National
Forest.
recreation fee demonstration program
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Forest and Public Lands of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
on an issue related to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. In the
first year of operation of Fee Demonstration projects, flaws in the
program's application are coming to light. These are flaws that I
believe can be corrected through a clarification of the policy
articulated by Congress in 1996.
I am generally pleased with the overall results of the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program. As various Fee Demo projects have been
implemented, some problems have occurred. Public acceptance of new or
higher fees has been enthusiastic in some quarters and hostile in
others. However, the program has shown promise overall.
Constituents have brought to my attention the threat of private
sector displacement by recreation managers in some National Forests. As
private permit terms expire, it appears at some Fee Demo sites there is
an intent to discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of
recreation goods and services. In other instances, the agencies are
choosing to go into direct competition with the private sector. The
Forest Service will now be offering so-called Heritage Expeditions,
which may evolve as whitewater rafting expeditions, archaeological
digs, or expeditions into Indian Country--activities offered in
abundance by community recreation programs, outfitters and guides,
environmental educators, lodges, marinas and dude ranches throughout
rural America.
If this type of activity is allowed under Fee Demo, more and more
concessions may likely be taken from private sector operators and
placed into the hands of federal employees to operate. At a time when
federal employment rolls are being steadily trimmed, new employees will
be required at recreation sites to collect fees, perform maintenance,
plan and participate in interpretive and recreational activities. I do
not believe this was the intent of the Fee Demonstration Program.
This problem seems to be developing in other states. We need to send
a clear message to the land management agencies involved in the Fee
Demo project that Congress did not authorize this program to enable the
agencies to displace or discourage existing and future investment by
the private sector.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Arizona.
Idaho has experienced similar problems with implementation of the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in this first season of operation.
My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, has identified a serious
problem: use of Fee Demo authority to put the government into direct
competition with the private sector. It has happened in Idaho under Fee
Demo this summer, and I appreciate the gentleman's effort to bring this
unfortunate development in the implementation of the Fee Demo program
to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate.
It was on the Wild and Scenic section of Idaho's Snake River in
Hell's Canyon that the Forest Service conducted a pilot Heritage
Expedition trip in July. The Heritage Expedition element of the Fee
Demo program will be conducted regionwide next year in the Pacific
Northwest and in the Southwest Regions of the Forest Service, and I'm
told that the concept may be adopted nationally in the very near
future.
Essentially, the new Heritage Expedition initiative puts the Forest
Service into direct competition with an adventure travel industry that
is already highly competitive. Dozens of these businesses compete with
each other at every primary tourist destination in the country.
Thousands more have invested private capital to create and sustain
unique market niches on the fringes of the National Park System, or
tucked away in some remote corner of the National Forest.
At Hells Canyon, the demand for access to the river and along trails
and limited camping facilities is very competitive and increasingly
difficult for resource managers to resolve. Environmentalists hold
strong views that the river corridor is being trampled by boaters and
hikers. Boaters cling tenaciously to levels of float boat and jetboat
use that have increased steadily over decades. The Forest Service has
to date been entirely unable to reduce conflicts between these various
users groups, let alone soften the shrill cry from those who would
radically reduce use altogether. Congress has stepped in to arbitrate a
portion of these issues, and the situation is now the subject of rather
heated congressional hearings.
In pricing and advertising a whitewater Heritage Expedition through
Hells Canyon last July, the Forest Service executed an extraordinary
piece of business. It advertised a ``deluxe, fully catered'' whitewater
and camping trip in which the fourth night would be spent ``in the
luxury of'' a historic lodge. The four-day trip was offered, and I
understand fully booked, for the ``fee'' (the agency's term of choice)
of $1,740.
The Forest Service did use the services of a river outfitter in
conducting this trip and spent the final night at a commercial inn.
There may have been other director costs not evident from the agency's
advertisment of this trip in the Internet. But, I do not believe that
this is what we contemplated when we approved the Fee Demonstration.
It's important to note that a commercial operator in Hells Canyon
would not be allowed by Forest Service river managers to charge the
public such an exorbitant fee, no matter what amenities were tacked
onto the basic outdoor experience.
[[Page S9620]]
It was advertised by the Forest Service that a portion of its fee
would directly fund ``preservation, protection, and future management
of Hells Canyon's irreplaceable heritage resources.'' When the job of
analyzing this initial pilot Demo Fee program is complete, it be
important to know how much agency staff time and support costs were
diverted from normal responsibilities in order to plan, package, market
and conduct this trip.
Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Arizona. Such
activities as running expeditions were not what was intended when we
approved the Fee Demonstration Program.
Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleagues for bringing this matter to the
Committee's attention. In a letter to Regional Foresters on February
25, 1997, Forest Service Chief Dombeck clearly stated that the Fee
Demonstration is not intended to displace concessionaires. That was
clearly not the intent of this Committee when we passed the Fee
Demonstration Program. I thank the gentleman for calling this to the
attention of the Committee.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Burns and I see the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations on the floor
and we would like to engage him in a discussion regarding assistance
from the Department of Energy (DOE) to help finance the construction of
a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) now produced as a waste
gas at the Great Plains Gasification (Great Plains) plant near Beulah,
North Dakota to existing oil fields to be used for enhanced tertiary
oil recovery.
Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to discuss this matter with my
colleagues.
Mr. DORGAN. We thank the Chairman. This project will enhance tertiary
oil recovery efforts in North America which will help the United States
and Canada secure greater energy independence from foreign oil. It is
also critical to the long-term operation of Great Plains, which has
been a priority for the federal government since it sold the plant to
the Dakota Gasification Company in the late 1980s.
The financial assistance Senator Burns and I are proposing would
consist of a loan from funds currently available to DOE in a Great
Plains trust fund. DOE staff has reviewed the details of the CO2
project and the Department believes that a loan is appropriate if so
directed in an appropriations bill.
Is the Chairman willing to work with us and the House conferees to
include Statement of Managers language in the conference agreement that
permits DOE to provide such a loan at reasonable terms to the owners of
Great Plains and to the government?
Mr. GORTON. I am unfamiliar with the details of the proposed CO2
project, but I can assure my colleagues from North Dakota and Montana
that I will work with you, Senator Byrd and the House conferees to
include Statement of Managers language allowing the Department of
Energy to make a loan to the owners of Great Plains for the CO2
project, provided the project is consistent with our country's overall
energy and environmental policy objectives and is worthy of federal
support.
Mr. DORGAN. I wish to thank the Chairman for his cooperation.
Mr. BURNS. I am also supportive of this loan for the construction of
a pipeline to transport the excess CO2 from the Great Plains
Gasification plant to existing oil fields to enhance tertiary oil
recovery. Some portions of these fields lie within the boundaries of my
state of Montana, and would assist with the economic development of
this area. I would like to thank both the Chairman and my colleague
from North Dakota for working with me to reach some sort of
understanding on the importance of language in the conference report.
Regarding the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the chairman knows, the Forest Service
recently completed the consolidation of the Intermountain and Rocky
Mountain Research Stations in Fort Collins Colorado. I had some serious
reservations with this consolidation, but in the interest of reducing
the federal budget, I reluctantly agreed to allow the consolidation to
proceed. Allow me to share with my colleagues what some of those
concerns were.
I was concerned that the proposed merger would actually produce the
cost savings promised by the Forest Service. I was further concerned
that any administrative savings would be offset by increased travel
costs of staff traveling to Fort Collins. And since the consolidated
center would be responsible for providing research for approximately 60
percent of the nation's forest lands, I was particularly concerned that
the new center would have the ability to provide quality services to my
constituents once consolidation removed the administrative process one
step further from Utah. Finally, I was most concerned that the
employees currently stationed in Utah would be jeopardized by
consolidation. While I received numerous assurances that no positions
will be eliminated in Utah due to consolidation, it was still unclear
that the employees based in Utah would continue to have substantive
research responsibilities.
As I mentioned, despite these reservations, I reluctantly concluded
that the merger should proceed. I sought your assurance that the
Committee would revisit the consolidation next year to determine if the
promised benefits and savings have indeed been realized. If these
savings have not been met, I requested that the committee take the
appropriate action to rectify the situation. Is it still the Chairman's
intent to revisit the consolidation?
Mr. GORTON. I recall the Senator from Utah raising these issues in a
letter to me last March. I again say to him that the Committee remains
concerned that the estimated savings provided by the Forest Service may
well not be achieved. It would be an unfortunate waste of taxpayer
dollars to have permitted this consolidation to go forward if the
Forest Service fails to reach the savings promised. The Committee would
be happy to revisit the consolidation issue next spring during the
hearing process.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his efforts.
newfound gap road
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with
Chairman Gorton about Newfound Gap Road in western North Carolina. The
National Park Service is responsible for the maintenance of this road,
which runs through Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and it is the
major route for many residents of the area. The road reaches elevations
of 5,000 feet, so there is substantial snowfall in the winter, and I am
concerned about the snowfall removal effort from the NPS. The road was
closed on 42 days over the 1995-96 winter, and it was closed on 13 days
over the 1996-97 winter, but the last winter was exceptionally mild.
The NPS pledged increased efforts, but I am unaware of real changes in
their methods, and I am concerned about prospects for this winter. Is
the chairman aware of these problems?
Mr. GORTON. I am well aware of this issue. The Great Smoky Mountains
National Park received a $1.06 million increase for Fiscal Year 1997
and a $400,000 increase for fiscal year 1998. This is a large amount of
money, and I expect it to be well spent. This committee is reluctant to
seize the management prerogatives of the NPS, but I want to ensure that
this road is maintained for the people of western North Carolina, and
is available for use for as many days as reasonably achievable. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees have previously expressed
concern about Park Service maintenance of this road, and I expect the
Service to be responsive to our concerns.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am pleased to hear that the Committee understands
the importance of this issue. The NPS expects to spend a lot of money
for personnel costs, but I don't see evidence of a real commitment to
increased maintenance of Newfound Gap Road. The NPS produced a plan
last year to answer our concerns, but it was a superficial document
that offered little encouragement, so I am glad to hear the chairman
state that he expects NPS to be more responsive. This is important to
the community, and I hear support for these people, but the NPS will
need to take concrete steps to resolve this issue. The NPS cannot use
salt on this road because of environmental concerns, so it needs to
look at new equipment such as motorgraders, but I do not hear much
about that. Robert Stanton, the new NPS director, told
[[Page S9621]]
me that he is eager to work with us. He is a good man, and I am
confident that he will make some changes, but the NPS budget plan for
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park concerns me.
Mr. GORTON. The Park Service has ample flexibility to consider
equipment purchases if that is necessary for proper maintenance. The
Director is aware of the problem and I encourage him to remain
attentive to the situation so that this road remains open as much as
possible through the winter.
michigan lakes and streams
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
acquisition of 7600 acres of private land located in Michigan's Huron
and Manistee National Forests by the U.S. Forest Service.
As the result of a settlement between the State of Michigan and one
of Michigan's power companies, 11,000 acres of the utility's land are
being--or have been--transferred to the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust.
The trust is a coalition of the State's environmental agencies and
several conservation groups which was established as part of the
settlement and is authorized to sell these lands in order to capitalize
a trust fund that will support projects to restore the Great Lakes
fishery.
Approximately 7,600 of the settlement acres lie within or along the
boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forest, and a significant
portion are located along the popular Au Sable and Manistee Rivers.
Both these rivers boast some of the State's best fishing. The
acquisition of these parcels by the Forest Service would ensure the
protection of the water and forests and species located within them.
Mr. LEVIN. If my colleague would yield for a moment, it is my
understanding that the bill appropriates $700 million from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] for land acquisition which have been set
aside for a variety of projects, some of which will be identified after
consultation with the administration and the House. I believe
approximately $285 million of those funds have not been designated for
specific projects.
Mr. ABRAHAM. The senior Senator from Michigan is correct. These funds
have been budgeted but have not yet been earmarked for specific
purchases.
Mr. LEVIN. If my colleague will yield further, I think it is also
important to point out that the sale of these inholdings by the Great
Lakes Fishery Trust will help generate funds for fishery enhancement
programs and preserve critically important frontage along rivers that
flow into the Great Lakes. If, however, these lands are not purchased
quickly, then the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust could face significant
costs, including taxes and administrative fees. Such costs would put
the trust in the uncomfortable position of either having to sell these
lands commercially or paying these costs and thereby reducing the flow
of funds destined for financing improvements in the Great Lakes
fishery.
Mr. ABRAHAM. My colleague is again correct. the Great Lakes Fisheries
Trust and the Forest Service have a great opportunity to protect some
of Michigan's pristine natural resources. Unfortunately, if we do not
act soon, this opportunity will quickly slip away.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the
distinguished Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Can my colleague tell me whether the U.S. Forest Service
has expressed an interest in purchasing these lands?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, the Forest Service has expressed its desire to
purchase these acres. I understand that this acquisition is on the
Forest Service's priority list.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senators from Michigan for bringing this to
my attention. I understand how important this issue is to them both and
will give it due consideration as the conferees consider Federal land
purchases during the conference.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished
subcommittee chairman for his consideration and hard work in support of
this Nation's parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges.
Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator's consideration and my colleague
from Michigan's efforts and interest on this matter. Also, I want the
chairman and Senator Byrd to know that I have communicated our interest
to the administration and urged that this item be put on their priority
list.
chickamauga-chattanooga national military park highway road relocation
project
Mr. COVERDELL. Will the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior yield for a question?
Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield to the senior Senator from
Georgia for a question.
Mr. COVERDELL. As the Senator well knows, Federal funding for the
Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park highway road relocation
project is very important to myself and the State of Georgia. Your
previous support for this project has been especially helpful and
appreciated. I note that in the fiscal year 1998 Interior
Appropriations Committee report, on page 38, it states ``that the Park
Service intends to allocate $2.8 million in fiscal year 1997 to
continue work on the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park
highway road relocation project, and that additional funds will be
allocated in fiscal year 1999 from Federal Highway Lands Program
funds.'' In addition, the report also states that ``the committee
supports efforts to complete this project in fiscal year 1999.''
I appreciate the subcommittee chairman's interest in this important
issue. However, I am concerned that it appears that no funding will be
allocated for this project in fiscal year 1998. This has been an
ongoing road construction project and any further delay in its
completion will cause additional burdens to my State. It is my
understanding that the Park Service has made assurances that it will
provide at least $8.85 million in fiscal year 1998 from its Federal
Highway Lands Program funds. Is the Senator aware of these assurances
made by the Park Service?
Mr. GORTON. Yes. I am aware that the Park Service has indicated that
it will provide an estimated $8.85 million in fiscal year 1998 from its
Federal Highway Lands Program funds to continue work on the U.S.
Highway 27 bypass around the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military
Park in Georgia. The Senator should be aware, however, that the current
authorization for FLHP expires with ISTEA on September 30, 1997, so any
allocations for fiscal year 1998 are dependent upon enactment of a new
authorization and evaluation of the total funding allowed.
Mr. COVERDELL. If the subcommittee chairman would further yield, it
is my understanding that the House's version of the fiscal year 1998
Interior appropriations bill includes report language which reflects
the Park Service's assurance and sets aside a minimum of $8.85 million
for this project. I believe it is critical there be no further delays
in completion of this project or gaps in funding from the Park Service.
Would the chairman be inclined to include language similar to the House
in the conference report to the fiscal year 1998 Interior
appropriations bill?
Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to work with the senior Senator from
Georgia on this issue. I realize how important the Chickamauga-
Chattanooga project is to you and the State of Georgia. I appreciate
all your hard work and diligence on this project.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the chairman for his help. I yield the floor.
RenOvaTiOn of MonTezUma CreeK HeaLth cLiNiC
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the distinguished Chairman, Senator Gorton, for
his support on a matter of particular importance to the Utah Navajo
population of San Juan County. The issue involves the Montezuma Creek
Health Clinic in Montezuma Creek, UT.
For nearly 3 years, my colleague Senator Hatch and I have worked
together to improve the delivery of health care services to the
residents of San Juan County. This area is located in an extremely
remote part of southeastern Utah and is the home of approximately 6,000
Navajos. The Montezuma Creek Clinic is very important to this rural
community. However, the existing facility is in extremely poor
condition and has undergone numerous repairs. The clinic comprises a
patchwork of a mobile trailer connected to a permanent structure which
is approximately 40 years old.
In an effort to make improvements to the clinic, the committee
provided
[[Page S9622]]
$100,000 for planning and renovation of the existing structure. These
funds will be matched by the State of Utah and the Utah Navajo Trust
Fund that collectively will provide at least $300,000 for renovation of
the facility. However, I do have a question for the Chairman regarding
the intent of the committee report language with respect to how these
funds can be spent.
Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to provide a clarification.
Mr. BENNETT. The committee report language on page 98 states: ``The
Committee does not intend for any of these funds to be used for
facility or program [expansion], but rather, for improvement of
existing conditions.'' My concern is over the word ``expansion.'' As a
practical matter, the renovation of the facility may result in an
expansion of the overall structure. This is especially apparent since
the clinic is partially housed in a temporary structure and replacing
it may, in fact, increase the overall square footage of the clinic.
They clinic's staff also informs me there is a critical need to
increase the size of the emergency room as well as add additional
examination rooms in order to handle the current heavy caseload.
Moreover, in order to comply with Federal and State building codes,
some expansion of the facility will be needed. Clearly, these measures
are designed to accommodate existing services and, as such, should not
be viewed as an expansion per se.
Mr. GORTON. I understand the Senator's concerns. The committee
intends that the funds are used toward the design and construction of
renovating and improving the existing facility. Making improvements to
accommodate existing services is certainly acceptable. Such measures
would include replacing temporary housing with a permanent addition as
well as enlarging the emergency room, or adding examination rooms. The
use of the word expansion in the committee report was used to indicate
that the committee cannot ensure that additional funding--beyond what
is currently provided in this bill--will be provided by virtue of
facility improvements being made at this location. If additional costs
are anticipated because of a larger facility than presently exists, the
committee will consider these needs but can make no guarantees.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Chairman's position. The funds provided
by the committee are a positive step in improving the conditions at the
Montezuma Creek. I think my colleague for the clarification and, once
again, appreciate his support for this important project. I also want
to thank Senator Hatch for his support and work on this project.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, increasingly frequent catastrophic die-
offs of fish and waterfowl at the Salton Sea have led experts to
conclude that the entire ecosystem is in crisis and could perish in the
next five to ten years unless dramatic measures are taken. The crisis
has dire implications for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway because
the Salton Sea is a critical stop for species migrating along the
Pacific Coast. Urgent scientific research is underway, but scientists
have not yet identified the cause of the environmental crisis. The
area's agriculture, wildlife, water usage, and environmental health
systems are in jeopardy.
Another massive die-off is occurring now. Previously, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey worked in
partnership with the California Department of Fish and Game to deal the
diagnosis of dead species, rehabilitation of sick birds, and the
disposal of carcasses to avert the spread of disease. Unfortunately,
just a few weeks ago, California withdrew most of its field personnel
due to costs and concerns about the potential health threat to state
field personnel. California's withdrawal has resulted in a significant
increase in the workload of an already undersized federal staff at the
Sea.
I therefore ask the Chairman of the subcommittee to work with me to
include the following report language in conference.
Spurred by the accelerated rate of species decline at the
Salton Sea, the Committee directs the Secretary of the
Interior to create a plan for Department of the Interior
activities in the Salton Sea region in Southern California;
to submit the plan to Congress no later than April 15, 1998;
and to make every effort to consider any preliminary
recommendations in the FY 1999 Budget request. The plan
should seek to be as comprehensive as possible, and to be
compatible with important factors including water transfer
plans, environmental restoration needs, economic factors
(including agriculture) and the rights of Native Americans.
The Department shall develop the plan in cooperation with the
State of California and the Salton Sea Authority. In addition
the Committee urges the Department to consider the funding
needs of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge for
operations including laboratory support from the U.S.
Geological Survey, supplemental field staff during declared
die-off episodes to recover dead and dying wildlife and to
monitor wildlife health at the Sea, on-site and remote field
hospital operations for sick wildlife from the sea,
incineration and disposal facilities for dead wildlife, and
for high priority research needs identified by the 1997
Salton Sea Needs Assessment Workshop.
Mr. GORTON. I recognize the importance of addressing the emerging
crisis at the Salton Sea. I share your concerns, and will carefully
consider this language for possible inclusion in the Statement of
Managers accompanying the conference report on the Interior bill. I
would note, however, that the funding constraints under which the
Interior agencies operate do not allow for agencies to perform tasks
that should rightly he the responsibility of the States. Should the
conferees request the report suggested by the Senator for California,
such report should include a discussion of an appropriate division of
responsibilities among the federal government, the State of California,
and other relevant agencies.
Technical Corrections to the Utah Miner's Hospital Grant
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly the
technical corrections made in this bill to Section 116 of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. I wish to point out to my
colleagues that the original language was intended to ratify the State
of Utah's legislative decision to allocate all funds generated by two
federal land grants for a miner's hospital to the University of Utah in
Salt Lake City for construction and support of a physical
rehabilitation center. However, the original language inadvertently
failed to include the statutory citation of the first of the two land
grants for a miner's hospital. The technical amendments correct this
omission, clarifying Congress' ratification of the Utah legislature's
actions with respect to funds generated from miners' hospital land
grants in both 1894 and 1929.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Utah for the clarification. Will
the Senator briefly outline the history of these land grants?
Mr. BENNETT. Certainly. In the Utah Enabling Act, Congress granted
the new State of Utah the right to select 50,000 acres of
unappropriated federal lands for support of a miner's hospital for
disabled miners. This 1894 grant was supplemented in 1929 by the grant
of an additional 50,000 acres. In the late 1950's, the Utah
legislature, with the support of the United Mineworkers of America,
determined that accumulated funds from these two grants could best be
used for the construction of a rehabilitation center that would serve
both miners and the general public, rather than for the construction of
a standalone hospital for the limited number of disabled miners in the
state. This facility was constructed in 1965 and operated under the
supervision of an advisory commission that included representatives of
the State's mining unions. Subsequent state legislation has provided
that ongoing funds generated from the two land grants are to be used to
support this rehabilitation center.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator explain for the benefit of our
colleagues the need for Congressional ratification of the Utah
legislature's actions concerning these grants?
Mr. BENNETT. Although the rehabilitation center was constructed with
the support of the United Mineworkers of America, and has been open to
use by the state's miners, some have questioned whether the Utah
legislature was permitted under the Utah Enabling Act to use funds
generated from these grants for a rehabilitation center open to both
miners and the general public, as opposed to a facility open only to
miners. Section 116 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1997 was intended as Congressional approval of the Utah legislature's
actions with respect to use of accumulated and ongoing funds from these
land grants.
[[Page S9623]]
However, as I have noted, that Act referred only to the 1929 land grant
and inadvertently failed to cite the 1894 land grant. These technical
amendments correct that omission.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for the clarification. I am pleased
that we can now bring this issue to closure.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2107, the
fiscal year 1998 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill.
I congratulate my good friend, the senior Senator from Washington,
for his diligence in fashioning this important appropriations measure.
He has done a masterful job throughout the process.
Mr. President, the pending bill provides $13.7 billion in new budget
authority and $9.1 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the
Department of Interior, the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture, the energy conservation and fossil energy research and
development programs of the Department of Energy, the Indian Health
Service, and arts-related agencies.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed
actions are taken into account, the bill provides a total of $13.8
billion in budget authority and $13.7 billion in outlays for these
programs for fiscal year 1998.
I support the bill with the adoption of the manager's amendment to
bring the bill within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget
authority. The reported bill is $38 million in outlays under the
subcommittee's allocation.
It has been my privilege to serve on the subcommittee with the
distinguished chairman. I appreciate the subcommittee's support for
several priority projects in my home State of New Mexico.
I support the bill with the exception of the provisions relating to
Indian tribes, which I will speak to later in the debate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee's scoring of the Interior and related agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
H.R. 2107, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1998: SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal Year 1998, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,701 .............. 55 13,756
Outlays..................... .............. 13,691 .............. 50 13,741
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,700 .............. 55 13,755
Outlays..................... .............. 13,729 .............. 50 13,779
President's request:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,747 .............. 55 13,802
Outlays..................... .............. 13,771 .............. 50 13,821
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ .............. 12,980 .............. 55 13,035
Outlays..................... .............. 13,382 .............. 50 13,432
Senate-reported bill compared
to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority........ .............. 1 .............. .............. 1
Outlays................. .............. -38 .............. .............. -38
President's request:
Budget authority........ .............. -46 .............. .............. -46
Outlays................. .............. -80 .............. .............. -80
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........ .............. 721 .............. .............. 721
Outlays................. .............. 309 .............. .............. 309
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
timber road subsidies
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted against the Bryan
amendment regarding timber road construction subsidies. I would like to
take this opportunity to explain my reasons for doing so.
First, and most important, I believe the amendment goes too far. I
have consistently opposed the current subsidy because I believe it is
unfair to use the value of natural resources that belong to all
taxpayers to offset the full cost of access roads needed by the timber
industry to harvest those resources for their own profit. I agree with
the proponents of the amendment that this is nothing more than a
handout of federal assets at a loss to the taxpayers.
However, because many of these roads serve dual or multiple purposes,
I do not believe it is fair to shift the cost entirely to the timber
industry, unless the industry is the only user of the road. This is a
position I had clearly staked out in an amendment I offered in late
1995. In that amendment, I proposed to change the current system to
require timber companies to pay a fair share of the costs of
construction and maintenance of forest access roads. If, for example,
the road would be used half of the time for recreation, maintenance or
firefighting access, or some other legitimate purpose, then the timber
industry would only have to pay for half of road construction. If,
however, the road would only serve the timber company, the company
would pay the entire cost of construction.
I believe this is a fair means of allocating responsibility for
construction and maintenance costs--based on actual use of the road.
The Bryan amendment would have gone much too far and unfairly penalized
the timber industry.
Second, the amendment would have cut $10 million from the Forest
Service budget for road construction and maintenance. Anyone familiar
with some of the roads through our nation's forest lands recognizes the
need for more funding, not less, for maintenance of existing roads.
Even supporters of the amendment pointed out that the Forest Service
has a $440 million backlog of road maintenance needs for existing
roads.
Many of these roads were built and paid for by the timber industry,
and have since been turned over to the Forest Service. Many of them
remain multi-purpose roads, providing ready access for the timber
industry as well as the public and others to our forest areas. The
Forest Service budget for maintenance of these roads is limited, and
the Bryan amendment would have cut funding that could be used to
maintain existing forest roads.
Finally, the amendment does not adequately protect the counties from
a cut in the funding they receive from timber sales. Because the timber
industry would be required to fully fund access roads, companies would
likely submit lower bids for the timber. County governments rely on
revenues from timber sales to maintain their own roadways. Because the
money counties receive is based on a fixed share of total timber
revenues, a smaller pot would mean less money to the counties. The
National League of Counties has written a very strong letter opposing
the Bryan amendment.
Let me address briefly the concerns of environmental organizations
about the timber access road program. I believe we have to strike a
balance in our forest management policy between preservation and
production, focusing on healthy, well-maintained forests that will be
preserved for future generations.
However, I doubt seriously that eliminating the road construction
subsidy for timber companies would result in less logging of our
forests. The key to limiting logging and road-building in our forests
is a rational, reasonable forest management policy. In fact, because
the revenue from timber sales would decline with lower timber bids, our
forests could actually be harmed.
[[Page S9624]]
The Forest Service would have even less funding to carry out its
important preservation and management activities, and those wishing to
utilize these roads for recreational access to forest lands would be
denied that opportunity.
Mr. President, this amendment was cast as an anti-pork amendment. My
commitment to eliminating pork-barrel spending is quite well known to
my colleagues, whether it be earmarks in an annual appropriations bill
or corporate subsidies. But it is important that we look at the details
of this amendment, because it would have had serious consequences for
local communities and others who use these roads that I do not believe
the authors intended, and which have nothing to do with pork.
Mr. President, for these reasons, I voted against the Bryan
amendment. I will continue to pursue elimination of unfair and
inequitable corporate subsidies, including the current timber access
road subsidy. One mechanism which would help in the effort to eliminate
such subsidies is an independent, non-partisan commission to study all
corporate subsidies and prepare a package of recommendations for
Congressional review and action, and I have authored a bill, S. 207,
with several of my colleagues to set up such a commission. And I am
prepared to work with Senator Bryan and my colleagues to craft an
amendment to eliminate this inequitable corporate subsidy and put in
place a fair and equitable program to share the costs of timber access
roads among all users, and to ensure that rural counties already
strapped by declines in the timber industry are held harmless.
new world mine
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, more than a year ago I addressed this
body to tell my colleagues about a proposed gold mine that posed a
major threat to Yellowstone National Park. Crown Butte Mining, Inc.
proposed to construct a 72-acre impoundment area with a dam that would
be somewhere between 75 and 100 feet high, which would have a plastic
lining on the bottom and some sort of a cap on top to keep oxygen away
from the 5.5 million tons of tailings from the mining operation that
would go into this impoundment area. The purpose of keeping the oxygen
away from it is to keep the waste from turning into sulfuric acid. This
earthfill dam would be located high about Yellowstone National Park and
the Yellowstone River, in one of the most seismically active,
earthquake-prone areas of the country. An area where it snows thirty
feet a year.
I introduced a bill at the time to withdraw Federal lands from around
that mine from further disposal under the mining laws, and to draw
attention to this problem. I said at that time that my bill would not
legally stop Crown Butte from proceeding with the mine, but that I
hoped my bill would discourage them and dissuade them from doing it. I
said that I hoped that Crown Butte, as good corporate citizens, would
not force the issue and leave us to wonder whether or not this 5.5
million tons of tailings that they proposed to impound there could
possibly break loose and pollute the Clarks Fort and Soda Butte Creek,
which flows right into Yellowstone National Park.
To their credit, Crown Butte has not proceeded. They recognized that
the public wanted to protect Yellowstone, and they were going to have
to overcome some fairly significant environmental problems. And they
reached an agreement with the administration and with local
conservation groups that had sued them, and they agreed to let the
United States buy out their interest. They reached that agreement more
than a year ago, and the only thing that is required for it to be
consummated--for Yellowstone to be protected from this threat and for
the company to receive what they believe is fair compensation--is for
us to fund that agreement in this bill.
The Interior Appropriations bill includes $65 million for this
purpose. So we have the money to accomplish this goal of protecting
Yellowstone National Park.
Unfortunately, as the bill currently stands, it requires further
legislation for the administration to actually use the money for that
purpose. I hope we dispense with that requirement. The question is
simple--do we protect Yellowstone National Park through an agreement
which is supported by both the mining company and the National Park
Service, and which involves paying the mining company the appraised
value of its property? Or do we need to kick this around for another
two years, and reward the mining company for being a responsible
corporate citizen by saying, ``We've got to think more about this''?
As the ranking minority Member of the Senate Energy Committee, I am
very sensitive to that Committee's responsibilities. But it is quite
clear that no new law is required for this agreement to be consummated.
It involves purchasing private inholdings in a National Forest--
something the Interior Appropriations Committee has funded in hundreds
of places over the past several years on the authority of existing law.
The question is simple. Do we take the opportunity to save
Yellowstone, or throw it away?
I went to Yellowstone when I was 12 years old--breathtaking. I never
forgot any part of it, the geysers, the magnificent waterfalls--all of
it. Here is the first national park in America. Yellowstone, a crown
jewel. To allow a huge industrial development generating hundreds of
tons of highly acidic mine waste to threaten to destroy the first
national park in America, one of the real crown jewels of the world,
not just America, is absolutely unacceptable.
Many times we find that we in this chamber can't agree on some
proposal to protect environmental values because there is another side,
and a conflict. Here there is no other side. The mining company wants
to solve this problem. The conservation community wants to solve this
problem. I hope that when we take this matter up in conference, we will
drop this requirement for further legislation and simply solve the
problem.
WEATHERIZATION AND STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Gorton for
increasing funding for the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program
and the State Energy Conservation Program from the levels provided in
1997. As a strong supporter of these programs, I am encouraged to see
the Senate reverse the disheartening trend of the last few years
whereby the programs had been reduced to 50 percent of the 1995 level.
These programs are very important in Vermont, where high energy costs
are a stark reality. Last year, Vermont and the entire Northeast
experienced a dramatic price spike in heating fuel, twenty-five percent
higher than the previous winter. These price spikes hurt all
Vermonters, but low-income families carry a greater burden. Energy
costs account for fourteen percent of their total income, four-times as
much as the average household. The Weatherization assistance program
eases this burden by helping families insulate their homes, replace
inefficient heaters and ventilation systems and seal drafty windows and
doors. One thing Vermont has plenty of is drafty, old houses.
But the Weatherization assistance program is not just about keeping
homes warm, it is also about keeping homes safe. The program gives
priority to houses with unsafe chimneys and wiring, cracked heating
systems, carbon monoxide and combustion air concerns, and faulty
mechanical systems. In Vermont, this program is saving lives. Let me
share one example with my colleagues. During a routine energy audit at
the home of an elderly couple, the weatherization auditor found
extremely high and dangerous levels of carbon monoxide being emitted
from the gas cooking range. He discovered that when the power goes out,
the couple puts a blanket up around the kitchen and uses the cooking
range for heat. As it turns out, the couple had been suffering from
carbon monoxide poisoning in the dark every time there was a power
outage. Through the Weatherization program, the defective valve system
was replaced to make the home easier to heat and healthier for the
couple.
Finally, the Weatherization and State Energy Conservation programs
make economic sense. The Weatherization program returns $1.80 in energy
savings for every $1.00 spent on weatherization activities. The average
savings per home that participates in these programs is $4,000
annually. Again, these are savings for low-income families who are
having to make
[[Page S9625]]
the tough choices between heating their homes and feeding their
children. These programs also benefit our economy as a whole, by
creating jobs in the energy efficient technology industry and in the
service sector. In Vermont, for every dollar we spend on energy
efficiency, over seventy percent remains in our economy.
I commend Chairman Gorton for his support and look forward to
supporting the Senate level in conference as the minimum necessary for
these critical programs. As we attempt to make our nation more energy
efficient we cannot turn our backs on the programs that actually work
and deliver real benefits to real people. Whether these programs are
insulating the homes of the elderly, disabled or poor, or helping to
reduce energy costs for our hard-pressed schools and hospitals, we need
to support these effective programs. I hope that we can have a
successful conference in this area.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague Senator
Gorton on his amendment to provide kindergarten through 12th grade
education funding directly to local educational agencies. Last month, I
traveled through my home State of Missouri to discuss education and the
importance of parent involvement in their child's education. I strongly
believe that parents are the key to educational progress. As I visited
with parents, educators, and local school officials, they were in full
agreement concerning the education of our children; they need the
flexibility to improve the quality of education at the local level
without federal intrusion. As responsible parents and educators, the
need for our children to be properly educated was a top priority.
Over the last 30 years, federal involvement in education has
burgeoned and I am disturbed by the growth of federal involvement in
what is constitutionally the right of states: to provide for high-
quality, public education. This growth has been a wolf in sheep's
clothing: states and localities have been offered additional funding in
exchange for adhering to federal rules and regulations. The result has
been that local school officials, who are directly accountable to
parents, have experienced increasingly less control over education.
The Gorton amendment gives local schools and States what they have
been requesting for years: the flexibility to develop challenging
academic standards and programs that works in each locality. States and
communities are where the action should be in designing standards and
programs. It is at those levels that disputes are most likely to be
resolved and important local priorities recognized. We must return to
the traditional role of education and reduce federal control.
States and local school districts are making great strides in
educating our young people; however, the federal government cannot
continue to impede their ability to provide a high-quality education
which they are perfectly capable of doing. The Gorton amendment sends
us in the right direction, allowing both parents and educators to work
together for quality education. It is bringing education back where it
belongs: at the local level. We have lost too much already by the
impositions of the federal government, and it is time to remedy this
problem to prepare our children for the 21st century.
This amendment will ease regulations that prevent teachers, school
administrators, and parents from doing what is best to improve their
schools. Our goal is to ensure that our children are equipped with
solid academic basics, which is learning to read, write, compute,
think, and speak. There is no need to reinvent the wheel because we
know what works and that is parents, teachers, and local communities
working together to find local solutions to local problems to educate
our children. We know that our children could be doing better and I
want to ensure that local schools have every possible resource to make
that happen.
Mr. President, the Gorton amendment will help strengthen our
educational system by increasing local school district's flexibility
and funding to improve the quality of education for our children. I am
proud to support this amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt this
provision in conference.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR HUMANITIES
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH). While I am aware of
the national importance of the NEH, I am particularly supportive of
continued federal funding for NEH because of the regular and critical
funding my state of South Dakota receives. Grants from NEH are vital to
the people of my state in preserving the rich and unique cultural
heritage of South Dakota and the surrounding great plains states.
NEH programs exemplify the type of federal-state-local partnerships
that have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to cultural
and historic education. The NEH gives state humanities councils the
necessary freedoms to meet local education needs. In the last five
years, institutions in South Dakota have received roughly $2.7 million
from the NEH and the South Dakota Humanities Council for a variety of
library programs and exhibits, literary publications, and cultural
heritage visitors centers.
The South Dakota Humanities Council relies on the NEH for 90 percent
of its funding. That support goes directly to schools and small
communities for projects like ``Calamity Jane: The Woman and the
Legend'' produced by the Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission, and
``Lakota: Language, History, and Culture'' at the Bonesteel Fairfax
School. At the same time, broader educational projects continue the
literary legacy of many of this nation's most acclaimed authors and
long time South Dakota residents, including Laura Ingalls Wilder, who
gave us the ``Little House'' series, and L. Frank Baum, author of the
classic ``The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.'' This year, South Dakota
celebrated Baum's work with the Wizard of Oz Festival in Baum's
hometown of Aberdeen. This festival bloomed into a statewide, year-long
celebration, including reading programs in public schools, travelling
educational programs, and symposiums involving scholarly
interpretations of Baum's work at state colleges and universities. This
far reaching festival celebrating Frank Baum's literature was made
possible through several NEH grants.
The many NEH-funded heritage fairs and events held throughout my
state every year are endorsed by the South Dakota State Arts and
Humanities Councils, as well as state and local tourism authorities.
Recently, the South Dakota State Humanities Council received one of
only two national awards presented at the National Conference of State
Humanities Councils for the Oscar Michaux Festival'' held in Gregory,
SD. These and countless other worthy public education programs will
disappear in my rural State, and the creativity behind this type of
education programming will be thwarted if efforts to gut or eliminate
the NEH continue.
Although the United States provides far less public support for the
humanities than we spend on military bands, the NEH continues to play a
critically important role in improving the quality of life in rural
areas, such as South Dakota. I will continue to support Federal funding
for the humanities because of the NEH's very positive assistance to
cultural and historic organizations and schools throughout America.
LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from
Washington in a colloquy on the importance of the Low-Income
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation
Program to the people of New York, as well as the entire country.
Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge the fact that
Chairman Gorton has crafted a good bill under difficult circumstances.
This bill combines a number of different agencies and functions within
a tight budget cap, and I appreciate his effort to balance these
different needs.
Mr. President, the Weatherization Program upgrades the energy
efficiency of the homes of the poor, elderly, and disabled in this
Nation. This is important in warm and cold climates alike, providing
people with long-term solutions to housing affordability. This program
is highly effective with low administrative costs. The State Energy
Conservation Program permits States to target energy programs in all
sectors of the economy, from making schools and hospitals more energy
efficient to promoting alternative motor
[[Page S9626]]
fuels and renewable energy. This program is highly leveraged with large
amounts of State, local, and private funding. As the country moves
forward to restructure the electric industry, these two programs will
be all the more important to meet the needs of low-income families.
Mr. President, the committee's bill provides $5 million more than the
House-passed bill for weatherization and $1.1 million more than the
House for the State Energy Conservation Program. I would like to urge
Senator Gorton to stand firm in support of the Senate numbers in
conference with the House.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind remarks of my
colleague from New York. I would like to assure him that I will seek to
uphold the Senate position on the weatherization program and the State
Energy Conservation Program in conference. I appreciate the help and
interest of the Senator from New York in these two important programs.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think we are ready now for final passage
on the Interior appropriations bill. I thank all the Senators for their
cooperation. I'm sorry it took so long to get to this point.
Senator Daschle and I have been working on a unanimous-consent
agreement that would allow us to pass this bill and to get an
understanding of how we will proceed on the FDA reform.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S. 830
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
filing of the cloture motion on the FDA bill tonight, Senator Kennedy
be recognized for debate only for up to 1 hour, and the pending Harkin
amendment be temporarily laid aside until Tuesday, September 23.
I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, all time
from adjournment on Thursday and reconvening on Friday count against
the 30-hour cap postcloture.
I further ask that the Durbin amendments Nos. 1139 and 1140 be in
order on Friday and limited to 30 minutes each, equally divided, and
the votes occur in a stacked sequence at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday,
September 23, with 2 minutes for debate between each vote.
Further, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 9:30 a.m. and
10:30 a.m. on Friday be under the control of Senator Kennedy for debate
only, and when the Senate resumes consideration of FDA on Tuesday,
September 23, that 5 hours remain postcloture to be equally divided,
and following the stacked votes, Senator Reed of Rhode Island be
recognized to offer his amendment No. 1177 and all other provisions of
rule XXII remain in status quo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Therefore, in light of this agreement, the next vote
tonight will be the last vote this week. The next votes will occur at
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 23.
I yield the floor.
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?
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been ordered, The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the
Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Minnesota
[Mr. Wellstone] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent
due to a death in the family.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--3
Ashcroft
Faircloth
Helms
NOT VOTING--4
Akaka
Harkin
Moynihan
Wellstone
The bill (H.R. 2107), as amended, was passed.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses, and that the President be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer [Mr. Hagel]
appointed Mr. Gorton, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Bumpers, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. Boxer conferees
on the part of the Senate.
Mr. GORTON. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, this has been a
highly complex bill with a large number of amendments, colloquies,
inquiries, extensive debate and the like, and it almost, but not quite,
goes without saying that it would have been impossible to reach this
point without the service of large numbers of dedicated staff, many of
those for individual Senators with whom my staff and committee staff
have worked. But I want particularly to thank Ginny James, Anne
McInerney, Martin Delgado, Hank Kashdan, and Kevin Johnson of the
majority staff of the Interior subcommittee for countless hours in
preparing the bill and helping me in debate; Sue Masica, Lisa Mendelson
and Carole Geagley, of Senator Byrd's staff, for similar and equally
important work. The two staff directors of the overall Appropriations
Committee in the minority, Steve Cortese and Jim English; from my own
personal staff, Chuck Berwick and Nina Nguyen, who also have worked
countless hours. But most of all, the young man sitting beside me,
Bruce Evans, who is the new staff director for the Interior
subcommittee, who has gone through this for the first time with flying
colors; who seems to be able to write some of my remarks in exactly the
same way I would phrase them myself and who has been vital to our
success. I hope this praise spurs them on to ever more successful work
as we deal with the House, and the many differences between the two
bills.
Finally, I want to say, Mr. President, even though he is absent, how
greatly I appreciated the guidance and support of Senator Byrd, the
most senior Member of the Democratic Party, the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, and of course the ranking member of this
subcommittee. From the moment I took the chairmanship of the
subcommittee, he has been helpful and cooperative. He has pointed out
many pitfalls into which I otherwise would have fallen, and has been a
true friend and colleague, in a bill I think it is safe to say that is
highly bipartisan in nature. In spite of the many amendments with great
contests, most of
[[Page S9627]]
them have involved votes that have crossed party lines. And Senator
Byrd has been a wonderful ally and friend in that connection.
With that, I am ready to go to conference on this bill and allow the
Senate to move onto another subject.
____________________