[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7085-S7103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                             2001--Resumed


                           Amendment No. 3798

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 9:45 a.m. having arrived, the 
question now occurs on the Reed amendment No. 3798.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe my colleague, Senator Gorton, has 
a modification to my amendment, which I will accept. He is prepared to 
offer the modification to my amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the order of business? It is 9:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided for 
explanation on the Reed amendment No. 3798.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I have come to an 
accommodation, and we have a modification to his amendment.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on the Reed 
amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3798, As Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a modification to the Reed 
amendment to the desk, and ask unanimous consent that it be immediately 
considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, 
                            with an offset)

       On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and 
     insert ``$763,937,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $2,000,000 shall be derived by

[[Page S7086]]

     transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy 
     Development account and $2,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer of a proportionate amount from each other account 
     for which this Act makes funds available for travel, 
     supplies, and printing expenses: Provided, That $174,000,000 
     shall be for use in energy conservation programs as defined 
     in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of 
     Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the 
     eligible programs as follows: $140,000,000''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this modification does make an increase in 
the appropriation to the amount in the House bill.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Reed toward a cause in which 
he believes and in a way which is fiscally responsible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his gracious 
cooperation. This would increase the money we are committing to the 
weatherization program so that we could, in fact, provide more 
assistance to low-income homes to weatherize their homes, both to 
protect themselves in the cold of winter and the heat of summer. It 
would also make, we hope, the Nation less dependent on foreign sources 
of energy. It is an excellent proposal and program.
  I thank the Senator for his cooperation.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time and ask for a voice vote on the 
measure.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3798, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3798), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 3910 and 3911, En Bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two 
amendments that were inadvertently omitted from the managers' package 
last night be adopted at this time.
  I send them to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Grassley, 
     for himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3910.
       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3911.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3910

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a land 
  exchange with Dubuque Barge & Fleeting Services, Inc., of Dubuque, 
                                 Iowa)

       On page 163, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. MISSISSIPPI RIVER ISLAND NO. 228, IOWA, LAND 
                   EXCHANGE.

       (a) Identification of Land To Be Received in Exchange.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Secretary''), shall provide Dubuque 
     Barge & Fleeting Services, Inc. (referred to in this section 
     as ``Dubuque''), a notice that identifies parcels of land or 
     interests in land--
       (1) that are of a value that is approximately equal to the 
     value of the parcel of land comprising the northern half of 
     Mississippi River Island No. 228, as determined through an 
     appraisal conducted in conformity with the Uniform Appraisal 
     Standards for Federal Land Acquisition; and
       (2) that the Secretary would consider acceptable in 
     exchange for all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to that parcel.
       (b) Land for Wild Life and Fish Refuge.--Land or interests 
     in land that the Secretary may consider acceptable for the 
     purposes of subsection (a) include land or interests in land 
     that would be suitable for inclusion in the Upper Mississippi 
     River Wild Life and Fish Refuge.
       (c) Exchange.--Not later than 30 days after Dubuque offers 
     land or interests in land identified in the notice under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall convey all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to the parcel 
     described in subsection (a) in exchange for the land or 
     interests in land offered by Dubuque, and shall permanently 
     discontinue barge fleeting in the Mississippi River island, 
     Tract JO-4, Parcel A, in the W/2 SE/4, Section 30, T.29N., 
     R.2W., Jo Daviess County, Illinois, located between miles 
     #578 and #579, commonly known as Pearl Island.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3911

       On page 126, line 16, strike ``$207,079,000'' and insert 
     ``$208,579,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3910 and 3911), en bloc, were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3883

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
of debate on the Bryan amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this amendment would reduce the amount of 
money in a program that loses the American taxpayers a great deal of 
money--some $2 billion over the period of 1992 to 1997--and transfers 
$15 million into a program to help prevent forest fires in those areas 
which interface with the urban base. So we have State and local 
governments and the Forest Service all needing more money for planting.
  This is totally different from the amendment the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico offered which deals with reducing fuels that 
cause fires--a totally separate issue. This one is a winner for the 
American taxpayer, and it is a winner for the other people who live in 
those areas that can be affected by forest fires.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the Bryan amendment which proposes to cut funding for the Forest 
Service's timber sale program. Unfortunately, this amendment continues 
to assault on the statutory principle of multiple use of public lands.
  While I don't take issue with the Senator from Nevada on the question 
of increasing funds for fire preparedness under the U.S. Forest 
Service, I must vehemently disagree with the proposal that the federal 
timber program should be slashed by thirty million dollars. As we all 
know, we are dealing with finite resources under the Interior 
appropriations bill, and I believe the managers of the bill have 
achieved a proper balance under these circumstances. In addition, I 
must remind my colleagues that just last week we all voted to 
dramatically increase funds for hazardous fuels reduction with the 
adoption of the Domenici amendment.
  Year after year, opponents of logging on public lands allege that the 
Forest Service timber program is a subsidy for timber companies. The 
fact is, however, public timber is sold at competitive auctions at 
market prices. This is no subsidy for timber companies. Year after 
year, opponents of logging on public lands also claim that the Forest 
Service timber program is a money loser. Of course, their figures never 
seem to take into account the bureaucratic and statutory requirements 
created by a myriad of federal land regulations or recent accounting 
changes that front-load certain expenses, making more sales appear 
below cost. Unlike many private lands, National Forest System lands are 
managed for multiple uses--recreation, wildlife habitat, and forest 
products. If anything, the fiscal arguments used by proponents of this 
amendment only prove that, indeed, federal regulatory mandates are 
quite expensive.
  Ironically, this amendment is actually counterproductive for the 
environment as well. We have well over sixty-five million acres of the 
National Forest System at risk of catastrophic wildlife, disease, and 
insect infestation. The high fuel loads created by a century of fire 
suppression, and eight years of passive forest management have set up 
our national forests for catastrophic wildlifes that threaten homes, 
wildlife, and watersheds. Mechanical removal through timber sales can 
be an efficient and economical tool to reduce these wildfire risks, and 
it should be available to the professional foresters of the Forest 
Service.
  Despite its strong backing from environmental groups, the Bryan 
amendment will do nothing for global environmental stewardship as long 
as we, in the United States, continue to consume more wood products. 
During the assault on public lands industries under this 
administration, the amount of timber sold from our federal forests has 
dropped by nearly eighty percent. Predictably, our lumber imports have 
jumped by fifty percent over the same time. In other words, further 
cutting

[[Page S7087]]

our domestic federal timber program may be a feel-good move for some, 
but it will merely serve to encourage the shift of U.S. timber 
consumption to forests in foreign countries. Many of these source 
countries do not have the rigorous environmental standards we have in 
the U.S.--so we should ask ourselves whose environment we are really 
saving with this amendment, and at what cost.
  What is particularly troubling for me about this kind of attack on 
the timber sale program is that Oregon has some of the best forests for 
timber production in the world. Certainly, Oregon forests are able to 
regenerate this renewable resource in a much more environmentally sound 
way than some of the foreign forests on which we have come to depend 
for our wood products needs. Yet in Oregon we have seen an even steeper 
decline in federal timber harvests than the nation as a whole during 
the Clinton-Gore years--more than ninety percent. Over a hundred mills 
have closed in my state and thousands of family-wage jobs in rural 
counties have been lost. Just last month, two more wood products 
facilities closed--one in Dallas, Oregon and one in Wallowa, Oregon. 
The Bryan amendment will just exacerbate the transfer of these jobs to 
foreign timber producers.
  Mr. President, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for 
environment and recreational purposes on our federal lands--there 
certainly is. However, I believe strongly that we must manage our 
federal lands in a balanced way, so that we are good stewards of the 
land and meet some of our human needs for timber and recreation at the 
same time. Unfortunately, the amendment before us is just another 
attempt to export jobs and timber harvests overseas at the expense of 
rural America. I urge my colleagues to reject the Bryan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is another attempt to do away with the 
timber program and the salvage program, and all those associated with 
them. If you want to do something about fires, or the safety of the 
forests, or the health of the forests, what you do is maintain a 
healthy harvest situation. In other words, it just makes a lot of 
sense. It is the old idea of the Government having to own all the land. 
You have to harvest those trees. To take the money away from it does 
not get to the environmental objective that a lot of us want to get to.
  I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Might I inquire, is there any more time remaining on my 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3883. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The amendment (No. 3883) was rejected.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes in 
the next series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Lieberman amendment be 
postponed and be put last on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3884

  Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Nickles amendment numbered 3884.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment would basically say there 
would be no new national monuments unless authorized by an act of 
Congress.
  Under the Antiquities Act, this administration just this year 
declared 2 million acres to be national monuments.
  I happen to be a fan of national monuments, but I think we should 
have local input. We should have the Governors say whether or not they 
are for it. We should have local communities testify before Congress. 
We should have some input. Right now, that is not happening.
  Prior to the last election, the President stood at the Grand Canyon 
and declared 1.7 million acres in Utah a national monument. This year, 
he declared 2 million acres. In contrast, that compares to 86,000 acres 
by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush. President Johnson declared 
344,000. This President has already declared 2 million acres this year.
  I think Congress should have some input. We should authorize it by an 
act of Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Nickles amendment is a historic vote. 
Since 1906, virtually every President of the United States has used the 
Antiquities Act to protect valuable, irreplaceable national treasures, 
such as the Grand Tetons and Olympic National Park.
  With this Nickles amendment, the party of Teddy Roosevelt officially 
abandons its commitment to his environmental legacy. Without as much of 
a minute of hearings on this issue, the Nickles amendment strips the 
President of the authority he has had for generations to protect 
America's natural and national treasures. The Grand Old Party works 
overtime to protect the legacy of the wealthy from taxation but refuses 
to protect the legacies of meadows, rivers, mountains, and forests for 
our children.
  Vote ``no'' on the Nickles amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3884. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page S7088]]



                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The amendment (No. 3884) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in a very short period of time now, we can 
adopt two amendments that have now been agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we now proceed to 
consider the Lieberman amendment No. 3811.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment has now been agreed to by 
all sides.
  We yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time being yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3811) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3887

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now 
proceed to the Bingaman amendment No. 3887.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3887, As Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, an agreement has been reached on this 
amendment, which requires a modification. I send the modification to 
the Bingaman amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be 
so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regrading the protection 
          of Indian program monies from judgment fund claims)

       On page 163, after line 23, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) in 1990, pursuant to the Indian Self Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq., a 
     class action lawsuit was filed by Indian tribal contractors 
     and tribal consortia against the United States, the Secretary 
     of the Interior and others seeking money damages, injunctive 
     relief, and declaratory relief for alleged violations of the 
     ISDEAA (Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, 112 F.3d 1455 (10th 
     Cir. 1997));
       (2) the parties negotiated a partial settlement of the 
     claim totaling $76,200,000, plus applicable interest, which 
     was approved by the court on May 14, 1999;
       (3) the partial settlement was paid by the United States in 
     September 1999, in the amount of $82,000,000;
       (4) the Judgment Fund was established to pay for legal 
     judgments awarded to plaintiffs who have filed suit against 
     the United States;
       (5) the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 requires that the 
     Judgment Fund be reimbursed by the responsible agency 
     following the payment of an award from the Fund;
       (6) the shortfall in contract support payments found by the 
     Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Ramah resulted 
     primarily from the non-payment or underpayment of indirect 
     costs by agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
     the Indian Health Service;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) repayment of the judgment fund for the partial 
     settlement in Ramah from the accounts of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs and Indian Health Service would significantly reduce 
     funds appropriated to benefit Tribes and individual Native 
     Americans; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior should work with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget to secure 
     funding for repayment of the judgment in Ramah within the 
     budgets of the agencies that did not pay indirect costs to 
     plaintiffs during the period 1988 to 1993 or paid indirect 
     costs at less than rates provided under the Indian Self-
     Determination Act during such period.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to express 
the sense of the Senate that repayment of the judgment fund for the 
partial settlement in the Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan case from 
Indian program funds within BIA and IHS would significantly reduce the 
funds appropriated to benefit Tribes and individual Native Americans 
across the country.
  This unprecedented partial settlement was the result of a lawsuit 
filed in 1990, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act against the United States, the Secretary of Interior 
Manuel Lujan, and others.
  The Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico 
initiated the lawsuit to recover damages for the alleged non-payment or 
underpayment of indirect costs, related to 638 contracts it entered 
into with several federal agencies.
  This suit became a class action suit and currently involves over 326 
class members made up of tribal contractors and tribal consortia from 
across the country.
  In 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the tribes 
involved were underpaid and that several federal agencies were involved 
in the non-payment and underpayment of indirect costs.
  Last year, the federal agencies and the plaintiffs negotiated a 
partial settlement totaling $76,200,000, plus applicable interest.
  This partial settlement was paid by the United States in September 
1999.
  Many people do not realize that Congress established a Judgment Fund 
to pay for legal judgments awarded to plaintiffs who sue the United 
States. This enables plaintiffs to be paid the amount of their judgment 
without having to wait for Congress to appropriate funds for each case.
  Years later, in 1978, Congress passed the Contract Disputes Act and 
required that the Judgment Fund be reimbursed by the responsible agency 
after an award is paid from the judgment fund.
  The problem we have today is the Department of Interior, namely the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, has been billed for the entire amount of the 
partial settlement in the Ramah case. With interest, this totals 
approximately $83 million.
  Many tribes are concerned that if BIA has to pay back the judgment 
fund from available funds, Indian programs will be significantly 
impacted. I share their concern.
  I introduced this amendment to shed some light on this issue and to 
encourage the federal agencies to resolve this matter in a way that 
does not severely impact Indian programs.
  It does not seem appropriate to me that Indian program funds--funds 
that benefit tribes and individual Indians--should be used to pay for a 
lawsuit brought by tribes and tribal entities.
  Because there were many agencies involved in the underpayment of the 
contract support costs, I believe the Secretary of Interior should work 
with the OMB to find the funding from within the budgets of all of the 
agencies involved.
  Any other result would be unjust and unfair to Native Americans 
across the country.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this sense of the Senate and I 
thank Senator Campbell for his leadership in this area and his support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bingaman 
and others in this Sense of the Senate Resolution related to a class 
action lawsuit that was filed some years ago by several Indian tribes 
against Secretary Babbitt for failure to fully pay for contract support 
costs necessary for tribal contractors to carry out Federal programs 
and services under the Indian Self Determination and Education 
Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.
  To fully understand this issue a little background is in order. I was 
the proud sponsors of S. Res. 277, commemorating the 30th anniversary 
of President Nixon's ``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs'' 
in which he laid the foundation for modern Federal Indian policy--
Indian Self Determination. Built on the twin pillars of political self 
determination and economic self sufficiency, this policy continues to 
be a driving force in the economic progress some tribes are making.

[[Page S7089]]

  The 1975 ISDEA was enacted to further this policy by authorizing 
Indian tribes to contract for the performance of Federal programs and 
services by ``stepping into the shoes'' of the United States.
  Now, 25 years later, nearly one-half of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and Indian Health Service programs and services are subject to tribal 
contracts and compacts.
  To facilitate these contracts, the United States is obligated to 
provide the administration costs--or ``contract support costs''--to 
those tribes that carry out ISDEA contracts, just as it does to 
military contractors, research universities and other entities.
  The Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Babbitt case resulted in a judgment of 
$82 million against the U.S. to be paid from the Judgment Fund for 
failure to pay these contract support costs. Under the law applicable 
to this case, the Treasury Department may seek to have the BIA 
reimburse the Judgment Fund for this amount. The funds for 
reimbursement would come from the BIA's operating budget, resulting in 
manifest inequity for not only the plaintiff tribes but for all tribes 
who depend on BIA funds for core programs such as law enforcement, 
education, child care, and others.
  This sense of the Senate amendment would not prevent the kind of 
reimbursement that the tribes and I fear, but expresses the consensus 
of the Senate that the agencies involved--the BIA and the IHS--should 
declare Indian program funds unavailable for purposes of reimbursement.
  I remain hopeful that stronger language can be crafted to protect 
these funds, and in the interim lend my support to this amendment. I 
want to commend Senator Bingaman for his hard work in finding a 
solution that does not run afoul of the budget rules and commit to 
working with him and others as we proceed to conference in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on the Bingaman 
amendment, as modified?
  Mr. GORTON. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 3887, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3887), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, regular order.


                           Amendment No. 3886

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the Bond second-degree 
amendment No. 3886 to the Boxer amendment.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Lincoln, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Roberts be added as cosponsors to my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment which prevents funds from being used for the application of 
unapproved pesticides in areas that may be used by children and directs 
the Secretary of the Interior to work with EPA to ensure that pest 
control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure to children.
  We updated the safety standards for pesticides, with specific safety 
factors for children, in 1996.
  This amendment allows EPA to do its job. The Boxer amendment seeks to 
regulate pest control products from the Senate floor, thereby ignoring 
the scientific tests EPA requires for pesticide registrations.
  I urge Members to support the Bond second-degree amendment and to let 
EPA do its job of regulating and ensuring safety for all of us, 
including our children.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bond 
second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by my colleague from 
California.
  I agree with the intentions of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from California. All of us want to protect the health of our children. 
However, I do not believe her amendment does this. In fact, I believe 
it could actually harm the health of children.
  In 1996, Congress approved, nearly unanimously, the Food Quality and 
Protection Act. The FQPA was intended to reform pesticide tolerance and 
review processes dating from as far back as the 1950s. Quite simply, 
prior to the passage of the FQPA the standards being used to evaluate 
pesticides and chemicals was not in step with today's science.
  Under the FQPA we tightened the review standards. Their are specific 
guidelines for pesticide and tolerance review by EPA. And, EPA has 
tightened the requirements regarding the effects of the pesticides on 
children. If EPA believes a chemical or pesticide could be harmful to 
children, it can pull, or request that a product, be pulled from the 
market. In fact, this has happened in several instances.
  EPA should and will pull a chemical when children's and the public's 
health are at risk. At the same time, I want my colleagues to 
understand that without these pesticides we may be submitting our 
children to health risks associated with roaches, brown recluse 
spiders, ticks, mosquitoes, and other pests.
  By passing the Senator from California's amendment, we may actually 
be tying the hands of our federal officials and keep them from 
protecting children from these pests.
  The Bond amendment recognizes that we already have a review and 
approval process in place. It says that if a chemical has not been 
deemed safe to use around children it cannot be used by the federal 
agencies funded under this act. Congress has put a product review 
process in place. It should be followed. The Bond amendment stays the 
course and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the underlying amendment circumvents the 
science-based process at EPA which includes explicit and stringent 
protections for children.
  Additionally, it places children at risk by prohibiting EPA-approved 
products that protect our children from diseases such as asthma, 
encephalitis, malaria, Lyme disease, brown recluse spiders, and others.
  EPA does not support this amendment, and the amendment is based on 
the shockingly false premise that EPA does not care enough about 
children to protect them as mandated by law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have no problem with the Bond-Lincoln 
amendment, but it does nothing. All pesticides that are on the market 
today are approved by EPA. There are none that are not. This is a sham 
amendment to kill my underlying amendment, which already passed this 
Senate 84-14 when I offered it on the Department of Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Simply put, what we are saying is, for preventive and routine 
application of pesticides in national parks--where children play--don't 
use the most toxic pesticides, those that are identified by the EPA as 
known or probable carcinogens, acute nerve toxins or organophosphates, 
carbamates or organochlorines. EPA has identified these pesticides as 
those ``which appear to pose the greatest risk to public health.'' In a 
June 13, 2000 letter, EPA states that it ``strongly supports the goal'' 
of my amendment.
  EPA supports what we are trying to do because they have a mission, 
which is to protect kids. While it's true that the Food Quality 
Protection Act of 1996 required EPA to ensure that its standards 
protect children, the fact is, EPA is not implementing this provision 
consistent with congressional intent. EPA has only applied the ``safety 
factor'' referred to by my colleague from Arkansas in nine--just nine--
of the thousands of cases it has reviewed. EPA is currently being sued 
because it is not enforcing this important provision.
  So what we are saying is, for the preventive and routine application, 
do not use these highly toxic pesticides unless there is an emergency, 
because children are not adults--they are rapidly growing, they are 
rapidly changing and they are, as a result, uniquely vulnerable to 
these toxins.
  In its report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, the 
National

[[Page S7090]]

Academy of Sciences tells us that children are uniquely vulnerable to 
the exact toxins targeted by my amendment. The NAS also tells us that 
current EPA standards ``could result in the permanent loss of brain 
function [in children] if it occurred during prenatal or early 
childhood period of brain development.''
  I am voting for the Bond amendment. And I am coming right back with 
my first degree amendment to protect children from these dangerous 
pesticides.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent----
  Mrs. BOXER. 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.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3886 offered by the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the question on which we are voting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bond 
second-degree amendment No. 3886 to the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The amendment (No. 3886) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3912 To Amendment No. 3885

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3912 to amendment No. 3885:
       At the end of the amendment, add the following: ``None of 
     the funds appropriated under this Act may be used for the 
     preventive application of a pesticide containing a known or 
     probable carcinogen, a category I or II acute nerve toxin or 
     a pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate, or organ- 
     ochlorine class as identified by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in National Parks in any area where children and 
     pregnant women may be present.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. What we 
are saying is, for routine pesticide spraying in our national parks 
where children play and pregnant women are present, that the Park 
Service should use the least toxic pesticides. In other words, for 
routine use, don't use pesticides that are known carcinogens, probable 
carcinogens, or that are toxic to the nervous system. These pesticides 
are identified by EPA as ``those which pose the greatest risk to public 
health.''
  I would like to place into the Record a June 30, 2000 letter from EPA 
to my colleague Senator Bond where EPA states that fact.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2000.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding follow up 
     questions to the June 13, 2000 nomination hearing of Mr. 
     James Aidala before the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works. Enclosed are the questions with the 
     Administration's responses. Should you require any additional 
     information, please contact me, or your staff may contact Ron 
     Bergman at 564-3653.
           Sincerely,
                                                Diane E. Thompson,
                                          Associate Administrator.
       Enclosures.

                              Enclosure 1

       (1) Is it accurate that EPA supports enactment into law of 
     amendment #3308 as written?
       As you are aware, EPA stated in a letter to Senator Boxer 
     dated June 13, 2000, that EPA supports the goal of the 
     amendment. As noted at the hearing, however, the amendment 
     has not been subject to a full review by the Administration, 
     nor has the Administration taken a position on the amendment.
       (2) If EPA supports elimination of the products restricted 
     in amendment #3308, please outline and supply the scientific 
     studies and other scientific basis in detail which influenced 
     your judgement.
       EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to 
     children of pesticides. EPA is ready to work with the 
     Department of Defense (DoD) and others to craft effective 
     methods of pest control that will minimize exposures to 
     children. In fact, there is already a foundation of success 
     to build on in this regard. In 1996, EPA and DoD entered into 
     a memorandum of understanding to form a partnership to 
     promote environmental stewardship by adopting integrated pest 
     management strategies. This effect has resulted in 
     significant reductions of pesticide use by DoD.
       The categories of pesticides included in the amendment 
     correlate with Group 1 of EPA's schedule for tolerance 
     reassessment, consisting of pesticides which appear to pose 
     the greatest risk to public health. A copy of the Federal 
     Register Notice explaining the division of pesticides into 
     groups is enclosed. The Agency is giving priority to the 
     review of these pesticides through its tolerance reassessment 
     process and will take appropriate action upon completion of 
     the review. To date, the Agency has reviewed approximately 
     3,485 of the 9,721 existing tolerances. When the Agency 
     determines, after extensive scientific review, that the risks 
     posed by a pesticide do not meet the FQPA standards it will 
     move to eliminate the risk. For example, last August, the 
     Agency negotiated agreements with the manufacturers of methyl 
     parathion and azinphos methyl to either eliminate or reduce 
     application rates on foods to address such unacceptable 
     risks. Meanwhile, many of the pesticides included in the 
     amendment are still undergoing reassessment.
       (3) If EPA opposes the amendment, supports changes to the 
     amendment, or has concerns with the amendment, why was that 
     not expressed in the letter?
       As stated above, the June 13 letter reaffirms EPA's support 
     for the goal of the amendment. Beyond that, the 
     Administration has not taken a position on the amendment.
       (4) If the letter is neither supportive or in opposition to 
     the amendment, what was the purpose of the letter?
       Immediately after the June 13 confirmation hearing, EPA was 
     asked by Senator Boxer to provide its views in writing on the 
     amendment prior to the scheduled floor consideration of the 
     amendment. As Mr. Aidala testified, the amendment had not 
     received Administration review. Given the limited time 
     available, the Agency stated its support for the goal of 
     protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure and 
     to explain our current activities in that area. We also 
     expressed our willingness to work closely with the DoD on 
     this issue.
       (5) Were you aware of this letter at the time of your 
     testimony and if so, why was it not referenced before the 
     Committee?
       At the time of Mr. Aidala's testimony, EPA was not 
     preparing a letter, it was only upon the conclusion of the 
     hearing that a request was received from Senator Boxer for 
     such a letter. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Aidala was 
     only aware that Senator Boxer was considering introducing 
     such an amendment.
       (6) If you were not, were you subsequently consulted?

[[Page S7091]]

       Mr. Aidala was subsequently informed that EPA's Office of 
     Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations received a 
     request from Senator Boxer to clarify EPA's views.
       (7) If you were not consulted, why were you not consulted?
       Not applicable.
       (8) Please reconcile your testimony with the letter.
       The letter and, to the best of our understanding, Mr. 
     Aidala's testimony state that EPA supports the goal of 
     protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, and 
     that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted at the 
     hearing, however, the amendment has not been subject to a 
     full review by the Administration.
       (9) Does EPA already protect children on military bases 
     from harmful pesticides?
       The protection of children is one of our highest 
     priorities. When we register, reregister, or reassess 
     tolerances for existing pesticides we try to ensure that our 
     actions are protective of all consumers, especially children. 
     FQPA requires special protections for infants and children 
     including: an explicit determination that tolerances are safe 
     for children; an additional safety factor, if necessary, to 
     account for uncertainty in data relative to children; and 
     consideration of children's special sensitivity and exposure 
     to pesticide chemicals.
       (10) If not, why not?
       Not applicable.
       (11) If so, why is this legislation necessary?
       EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to 
     children from pesticides and respects the authority of 
     Congress to impose restrictions beyond the current regulatory 
     program.
       (12) List the products that would be impacted by this 
     amendment?
       As stated earlier, the products correlate with those on 
     Group 1 of EPA's tolerance reassessment schedule. A copy of 
     that schedule of information is enclosed.
       (13) Describe the nature of the products in a range from 
     threatening to benign that would be affected by this 
     amendment?
       Pesticides which were included in Group 1 were those that 
     EPA identified as appearing to pose the greatest risk to 
     public health. The Agency did not distinguish among products 
     in this group in terms of their potential effects.
       (14) Do any of these products have positive benefits to 
     children's health?
       When used according to label directions many of these 
     products could be used for pest control, sterilization of 
     medical instruments, or other uses potentially beneficial to 
     children.
       (15) If so, is there any risk to children if Congress 
     prevents the availability of these products?
       EPA is not sufficiently aware of DoD's pest control needs 
     to make that determination. To make a proper assessment, the 
     Agency would need to know what products are used, and how 
     they are used so that alternatives could be considered. It 
     should be noted that through EPA's Pesticide Environmental 
     Stewardship Program, DoD has committed to moving toward 
     pesticide alternatives and less use of pesticides, or use of 
     less toxic pesticides. DoD has been recognized by EPA for 
     their tremendous progress in this area.
       (16) What is the availability and cost of substitute 
     products?
       Again, EPA would need to know more about the DoD's pest 
     control needs to make that determination.
       (17) Are any of the products affected by this amendment 
     products that were NOT restricted in an equivalent way by the 
     chlorpyrifos agreement announced by EPA last week?
       There would be many other products affected that were not 
     part of last week's agreement, although chlorpyrifos products 
     would be part of the list of affected pesticides.
       (18) If so, which products/uses permitted under the 
     chlorpyrifos agreement would not be permitted under this 
     amendment?
       This would require detailed knowledge of DoD pest control 
     needs, but might affect any of the pesticides under Group 1, 
     including chlorpyrifos.
       (19) Did EPA consult with DoD prior to the 6/13/00 letter 
     to coordinate the Administration's view on the amendment?
       EPA did not formally consult with DoD in preparing this 
     specific letter. The letter stated that EPA supports the goal 
     of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, 
     and that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted 
     earlier, however, the amendment has not been subject to a 
     full review by the Administration.
       (20) Is EPA, in general, supportive of Congress 
     substituting its own judgment in place of that of EPA's by 
     bypassing the existing regulatory system that relies on 
     science and is already in place?
       EPA respects the role of Congress to enact laws and conduct 
     oversight on their implementation by the Administration. EPA 
     stands ready to work with Congress to ensure the necessary 
     pest control tools are available while minimizing unnecessary 
     risk.
       (21) In general, is EPA supportive of broad new regulatory 
     requirements added as legislative provisions to 
     appropriations bills without the benefit of public hearings 
     and if so why was this amendment not opposed on that basis?
       In general, the Administration opposes riders to 
     appropriations bills that weaken environmental protections. 
     As stated above, EPA supports the goal of limiting 
     unnecessary exposure of children to pesticides. This is 
     consistent with the emphasis of FQPA's mandate to protect 
     infants and children.

  Mrs. BOXER. I would also like to place into the Record a letter from 
EPA stating that the agency supports the goals of my amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     express the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     on your amendment to the appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Defense. This amendment would prohibit the 
     expenditure of funds for the preventative application of 
     certain categories of hazardous pesticides in areas owned or 
     managed by the Department of Defense, if the area may be used 
     by children. Examples of such areas include: parks, base 
     housing, recreation centers, and day care facilities.
       The EPA strongly supports the goal of the proposed 
     amendment to prevent unnecessary exposure of children to 
     highly hazardous pesticides. We consider protection of 
     children from unnecessary exposure to pesticides to be one of 
     our highest priorities. Before EPA registers a new pesticide 
     for any use, we evaluate its potential human health effects, 
     including effects on children, using the best scientific data 
     available. We conduct an extensive scientific evaluation to 
     ensure that pesticides will not cause short-term effects, 
     such as skin and eye irritation, or more persistent effects, 
     such as birth defects, reproductive system disorders, and 
     cancer.
       As you know, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) 
     directs EPA to bring the same scientific scrutiny to the 
     review of all pesticides previously approved for food use so 
     that we can be sure that we are providing the full measure of 
     protection for children. Under the FQPA, the Agency has 
     identified the pesticides which appear to pose the greatest 
     risk to public health. These pesticides, which receive the 
     highest priority for reassessment, include the categories 
     identified in the Boxer-Reed amendment: organophosphate, 
     carbamate, and organochlorine pesticides, potential human 
     carcinogens, and neurotoxic compounds.
       EPA stands ready to work with the Department of Defense and 
     other federal agencies to design safe, effective methods of 
     pest control that do not lead to unacceptable exposure of 
     children to these hazardous materials.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael McCabe,
                                      Acting Deputy Administrator.

  Mrs. BOXER. Contrary to statements you have heard today, EPA is not 
opposed to my amendment.
  Now, the Senate is already on record as voting for this before by a 
vote of 84-14. I hope we will see that type of a vote today. I just 
have to say this. There are scare tactics being used that say if there 
is an emergency, they could not use the highly toxic pesticides 
targeted by my amendment. Untrue. We have drawn up this amendment in 
such a way that only applies to the routine, preventive use. So please 
support us.
  The children in this country are counting on us to protect them. The 
National Academy of Sciences has told us that children are vulnerable 
to the dangers posed by the pesticides targeted by my amendment. Most 
important, the NAS has told us that current EPA standards don't protect 
our children from those dangers. At a minimum, we should protect our 
children. Please vote aye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stated before that this approach proceeds 
on the outrageous assumption that the Clinton-Gore-Browner 
administration in EPA is not doing its job of regulating pesticides. 
Children would be placed at risk if we banned these pesticides. And 
contrary to what was said in the DOD debate, EPA does not support the 
underlying amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a June 30 letter from EPA, which states 
they have not reviewed it, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2000.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding follow up 
     questions to the June 13, 2000 nomination hearing of Mr. 
     James Aidala before the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works. Enclosed are the questions with the 
     Administration's responses. Should you require any additional

[[Page S7092]]

     information, please contact me, or your staff may contact Ron 
     Bergman at 564-3653.
           Sincerely,
                                                Diane E. Thompson,
                                          Associate Administrator.
       Enclosures.

                              Enclosure 1

       (1) Is it accurate that EPA supports enactment into law of 
     amendment #3308 as written?
       As you are aware, EPA stated in a letter to Senator Boxer 
     dated June 13, 2000, that EPA supports the goal of the 
     amendment. As noted at the hearing, however, the amendment 
     has not been subject to a full review by the Administration, 
     nor has the Administration taken a position on the amendment.
       (2) If EPA supports elimination of the products restricted 
     in amendment #3308, please outline and supply the scientific 
     studies and other scientific basis in detail which influenced 
     your judgment.
       EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to 
     children of pesticides. EPA is ready to work with the 
     Department of Defense (DoD) and others to craft effective 
     methods of pest control that will minimize exposures to 
     children. In fact, there is already a foundation of success 
     to build on in this regard. In 1996, EPA and DoD entered into 
     a memorandum of understanding to form a partnership to 
     promote environmental stewardship by adopting integrated pest 
     management strategies. This effort has resulted in 
     significant reductions of pesticide use by DoD.
       The categories of pesticides included in the amendment 
     correlate with Group 1 of EPA's schedule for tolerance 
     reassessment, consisting of pesticides which appear to pose 
     the greatest risk to public health. A copy of the Federal 
     Register Notice explaining the division of pesticides into 
     groups is enclosed. The Agency is giving priority to the 
     review of these pesticides through its tolerance reassessment 
     process and will take appropriate action upon completion of 
     the review. To date, the Agency has reviewed approximately 
     3,485 of the 9,721 existing tolerances. When the Agency 
     determines, after extensive scientific review, that the risks 
     posed by a pesticide do not meet the FQPA standards it will 
     move to eliminate the risk. For example, last August, the 
     Agency negotiated agreements with the manufacturers of methyl 
     parathion and azinphos methyl to either eliminate or reduce 
     application rates on foods to address such unacceptable 
     risks. Meanwhile, many of the pesticides included in the 
     amendment are still undergoing reassessment.
       (3) If EPA opposes the amendment, supports changes to the 
     amendment, or has concerns with the amendment, why was that 
     no expressed in the letter?
       As stated above, the June 13 letter reaffirms EPA's support 
     for the goal of the amendment. Beyond that, the 
     Administration has not taken a position on the amendment.
       (4) If the letter is neither supportive or in opposition to 
     the amendment, what was the purpose of the letter?
       Immediately after the June 13 confirmation hearing, EPA was 
     asked by Senator Boxer to provide its views in writing on the 
     amendment prior to the secluded floor consideration of the 
     amendment. As Mr. Aidala testified, the amendment had not 
     received Administration review. Given the limited time 
     available, the Agency stated its support for the goal of 
     protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure and 
     to explain our current activities in that area. We also 
     expressed our willingness to work closely with the DoD on 
     this issue
       (5) Were you aware of this letter at the time of your 
     testimony and if so, why was it not referenced before the 
     Committee?
       At the time of Mr. Aidala's testimony, EPA was not 
     preparing a letter, it was only upon the conclusion of the 
     hearing that a request was received from Senator Boxer for 
     such a letter. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Aidala was 
     only aware that Senator Boxer was considering introducing 
     such an amendment.
       (6) If you were not, were you subsequently consulted?
       Mr. Aidala was subsequently informed that EPA's Office of 
     Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations received a 
     request from Senator Boxer to clarify EPA's views
       (7) If you were not consulted, why were you not consulted.
       Not applicable.
       (8) Please reconcile your testimony with the letter.
       The letter and, to the best of our understanding, Mr. 
     Aidala's testimony state that EPA supports the goal of 
     protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, and 
     that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted at the 
     hearing, however, the amendment has not been subject to a 
     full review by the Administration.
       (9) Does EPA already protect children on military bases 
     from harmful pesticides?
       The protection of children is one of our highest 
     priorities. When we register, reregister, or reassess 
     tolerances for existing pesticides we try to ensure that our 
     actions are protective of all consumers, especially children. 
     FQPA requires special protections for infants and children 
     including: an explicit determination that tolerances are safe 
     for children; an additional safety factor, if necessary, to 
     account for uncertainty in data relative to children; and 
     consideration of children's special sensitivity and exposure 
     to pesticide chemicals.
       (10) If not, why not?
       Not applicable.
       (11) If so, why is this legislation necessary?
       EPA supports the goal of limiting unnecessary exposure to 
     children from pesticides and respects the authority of 
     Congress to impose restrictions beyond the current regulatory 
     program.
       (12) List the products that would be impacted by this 
     amendment?
       As stated earlier, the products correlate with those on 
     Group 1 of EPA's tolerance reassessment schedule. A copy of 
     that schedule of information is enclosed.
       (13) Describe the nature of the products in a range from 
     threatening to benign that would be affected by this 
     amendment?
       Pesticides which were included in Group 1 were those that 
     EPA identified as appearing to pose the greatest risk to 
     public health. The Agency did not distinguish among products 
     in this group in terms of their potential effects.
       (14) do any of these products have positive benefits to 
     children's health?
       When used according to label directions many of these 
     products could be used for pest control, sterilization of 
     medical instruments, or other uses potentially beneficial to 
     children.
       (15) If so, is there any risk to children if Congress 
     prevents the availability of these products?
       EPA is not sufficiently aware of DoD's pest control needs 
     to make that determination. To make a proper assessment, the 
     Agency would need to know what products are used, and how 
     they are used so that alternatives could be considered. It 
     should be noted that through EPA's Pesticide Environmental 
     Stewardship Program, DoD has committed to moving toward 
     pesticide alternatives and less use of pesticides, or use of 
     less toxic pesticides. DoD has been recognized by EPA for 
     their tremendous progress in this area.
       (16) What is the availability and cost of substitute 
     products?
       Again, EPA would need to know more about the DoD's pest 
     control needs to make that determination.
       (17) Are any of the products affected by this amendment 
     products that were NOT restricted in an equivalent way by the 
     chlorpyrifos agreement announced by EPA last week?
       There would be many other products affected that were not 
     part of last week's agreement, although chlorpyrifos products 
     would be part of the list of affected pesticides.
       (18) If so, which products/uses permitted under the 
     chlorpyrifos agreement would not be permitted under this 
     amendment?
       This would require detailed knowledge of DoD pest control 
     needs, but might affect any of the pesticides under Group 1, 
     including chlorpyrifos.
       (19) Did EPA consult with DoD prior to the 6/13/00 letter 
     to coordinate the Administration's view on the amendment?
       EPA did not formally consult with DoD in preparing this 
     specific letter. The letter stated that EPA supports the goal 
     of protecting children from unnecessary pesticide exposure, 
     and that EPA supports the goal of the amendment. As noted 
     earlier, however, the amendment has not been subject to a 
     full review by the Administration.
       (20) Is EPA, in general, supportive of Congress 
     substituting its own judgement in place of that of EPA's by 
     bypassing the existing regulatory system that relies on 
     science and is already in place?
       EPA respects the role of Congress to enact laws and conduct 
     oversight on their implementation by the Administration. EPA 
     stands ready to work with congress to ensure the necessary 
     pest control tools are available while minimizing unnecessary 
     risk.
       (21) In general, is EPA supportive of broad new regulatory 
     requirements added as legislative provisions to 
     appropriations bills without the benefit of public hearings 
     and if so why was this amendment not opposed on that basis?
       In general, the Administration opposes riders to 
     appropriations bills that weaken environmental protections. 
     As stated above, EPA supports the goal of limiting 
     unnecessary exposure of children to pesticides. This is 
     consistent with the emphasis of FQPA's mandate to protect 
     infants and children.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are great efforts in the EPA to 
protect children. They have special protections for infants and 
children. These products are important for sterilization of medical 
instruments, pest control, and other uses that are potentially 
beneficial to children.
  I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I agree with the intentions of the 
amendment by my distinguished friend and colleague from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. All of us should support Senator Bond.
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 3912 to 
amendment No. 3885. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?

[[Page S7093]]

  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The amendment (No. 3912) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I remind Senators that the two models of 
the World War II memorial that will be on The Mall are down in S-128 
with people there to explain. It will come before the Fine Arts 
Commission this week for a final approval. Senator Inouye and I have 
been to see it. We urge Members to see the memorial and understand it. 
I think it will become a controversial subject in the near future.


                     Amendment No. 3885, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying 
Boxer amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3885), as amended, was agreed to.


                         city of craig, alaska

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
manager of the Interior appropriations bill in a short colloquy 
regarding a provision of interest to me. My amendment provides an 
appropriation to recompense an Alaskan community for its inability to 
receive a municipal land entitlement under the Alaska Statehood Act and 
Alaska state laws.
  The city of Craig is a small town located on the southern end of 
Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. It is the only community in 
southeast Alaska which was unable to receive a municipal entitlement 
under Alaska state law. This is a result of a 20-year process in the 
1960s and 1970s by which the U.S. Forest Service and State of Alaska 
could not agree on the process for State selections under the Alaska 
Statehood Act at Craig.
  In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 
ANCSA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to work with the State 
``for the purpose of effecting land consolidations or to facilitate the 
management or development of the land. Exchanges shall be on the basis 
of equal value, and either party to the exchange may pay or accept cash 
in order to equalize the value of the properties exchanged.''
  Despite this authority, the implementation of the act in southeast 
Alaska simply resulted in Alaska Native land selections completely 
surrounding Craig. Under ANCSA, these selections are not taxable or 
subject to condemnation unless the land is developed. As a result, 
Craig and its residents of about 2,500 people live on only 300 acres of 
privately and municipally owned land. This is insufficient as a tax 
base to support the community. My colleague and chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee introduced S. 1797 to solve this 
problem. That bill which I cosponsored and which has passed the Senate 
unanimously would provide a land grant to Craig of approximately 4,300 
acres.
  However, I recently have been informed by the administration that it 
believes a direct monetary grant to Craig is a better way to resolve 
this situation. The amendment which is to be added to the bill would 
provide for this payment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I held a hearing on this issue and on S. 1797--
that bill will provide a grant of lands. While I would be happy to have 
that bill passed into law, I plan to work to that end. However, to 
assure that Craig is not left with nothing, I would also support this 
solution. It is my hope that one of these two approaches can be 
accomplished this year.
  My committee's hearing provides a clear record that Craig is in a 
unique position being the fastest growing city in Alaska and the 
regional center for Prince of Wales Island. The city fathers are 
struggling to keep up with the demands for services as people from all 
over the island move to Craig looking for work. The city submitted its 
financial records which showed its problems. Our committee responded 
with S. 1797.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct that this amendment would provide 
for such a payment. I am happy to accept this amendment from my 
colleagues from Alaska.


                       fish and wildlife service

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with 
an Interior appropriations bill which addresses so many of the Indian, 
natural resource, and energy issues confronting America today. I also 
want to reiterate my support for a program of great interest to me and 
my colleagues from the Great Lakes states.
  The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes funding 
for a grants program for the implementation of fish and wildlife 
restoration projects recommended in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources 
Restoration Study. Enthusiasm for this program has been high and 
proposals for grants have exceeded available funds. Nevertheless, the 
Administration has proposed discontinuation of these grants in its 
budget request. I thank the chairman and ranking member for recognizing 
the value of Great Lakes fish and wildlife restoration grants and 
maintaining funding for these grants at this year's $398,000 level.
  I would like to ask the distinguished ranking member if, should 
additional funds become available, he would consider increasing the 
grants funding for the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 
Program by an additional $500,000?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan and our colleagues from the Great Lakes states for 
highlighting the importance of Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife 
Restoration grants to the chairman and myself. We are pleased to 
recommend continuation of this program which is so vital to the fish 
and wildlife of the Great Lakes. I assure the Senator that the 
conferees will keep this program in mind, should additional funds 
become available for the appropriations in this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from West Virginia.


                       Funding for National Parks

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of Interior and Related 
Agencies, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
would answer two questions regarding funding for the National Park 
Service?
  Mr. BYRD. I would be pleased to offer my views about this bill to my 
friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am aware that the bill before us contains funding for 
Operations of the National Park System in the amount of $1,443,795,000, 
which is more than $80 million above the Fiscal Year 2000 level. I am 
also aware that approximately $25.6 million has been provided for 
increases in the base operating budgets of more than 80 parks and 
related sites, including increases of $325,000 for Isle Royale National 
Park and $850,000 for Keweenaw National Historic Park. I greatly 
appreciate that the chairman and ranking member have been able to 
provide these amounts. I must say to my colleagues, though, that there 
is also a significant

[[Page S7094]]

need for operating increases at other Michigan parks such as the North 
Country National Scenic Trail and Sleeping Bear Dunes National 
Lakeshore. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia whether such additional needs, including those above the 
President's request, will be considered in conference, or, in the event 
additional resources are not available, whether he would consider a 
reallocation of operational funds for Michigan parks?
  Mr. BYRD. While the increases provided in the bill for base operating 
increases are essentially spoken for, I will certainly be mindful of 
the needs identified by the Senator should additional funding become 
available in conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his answer, and 
if he will indulge me a few moments more, I would like to also inquire 
about land acquisition funding for the National Park Service.
  First let me say that, while the administration did not include the 
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in its Fiscal Year 2001 land 
acquisition request, I nevertheless appreciate your support, Senator 
Byrd, in obtaining $1.1 million for acquisition of the LaPorte 
property. I would ask, however, if the Senator would be willing to 
consider in conference a second request of $4 million for purchase of 
the Barratt property at Sleeping Bear Dunes should additional funds 
become available as the appropriations process continues?
  Mr. BYRD. Again, I thank the Senator for his question. As my friend 
from Michigan may know, the Interior subcommittee received over 2,000 
Member requests for funding for particular projects, accounts or 
activities. It is not an easy task, of course, to strike a satisfactory 
balance between the thousands of requests on the one hand, and the 
subcommittee's limited resources on the other. However, I am aware that 
the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is of great importance to 
the Senator from Michigan and the people he represents, and I was 
therefore pleased to be able to secure funding for the LaPorte land 
acquisition. I can also assure my friend that I will carefully consider 
his Barratt property request should additional resources become 
available later in the year.
  Mr. LEVIN. As always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.


                               cat island

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee may be aware, Cat Island is the last remaining private 
island that lies outside the Gulf Islands National Seashore. Located so 
close to the mainland, Cat Island has many natural and recreational 
resources that make it an attractive target for development.
  For the past couple of years, the owners of this property have been 
extremely patient while working with the Mississippi delegation and the 
National Park Service to ensure that their property is included in the 
Gulf Islands National Seashore, while competing development offers have 
been on the table. H.R. 2541 has passed the House of Representatives, 
allowing the Park Service to acquire this tract. A companion bill, S. 
2638, is now pending here in the Senate, where I hope it will move 
forward expeditiously and be enacted this year.
  Because this process has taken longer than expected, it is now 
critical that funding for the first phase of this project be provided 
this year through the Land and Water Conservation Fund should the 
enabling legislation be enacted. There is $2,000,000 in the House-
passed Interior Appropriations bill which is a good start, but it 
provides well below the amount needed for Phase I of this project. In 
fact, the first phase will require $10 million. Therefore, I request 
the chairman's assistance in working with me to fund the first phrase 
of Cat Island, providing that additional funding be made available as 
the Interior appropriations bill moves toward conference.
  Mr. GORTON. The report accompanying this bill reflects the 
willingness of the committee to consider funding for acquisition of Cat 
Island, Mississippi, should the enabling legislation be enacted this 
year. I understand the urgency of this project and the need to provide 
adequate funding this year. With this in mind, should additional 
allocations be made available for this bill as it moves through the 
process, I will work with the Senator to ensure that this worthy 
project receives our full consideration.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Chairman's consideration of my request 
and his willingness to work with me both last year and this year to 
further this important project. I hope that the enabling legislation 
will be completed by the time the Interior bill reaches conference and 
that we can work together to make Cat Island a success this year.


                       black liquor gasification

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentlemen from Washington and West Virginia for their leadership in 
shepherding this bill through Committee and to the floor. I recognize 
that the Committee was faced with requests that went far beyond the 
Committee's budget, and I commend the leaders for successfully 
balancing the myriad of requests with which they were presented.
  I want to bring to my colleagues' attention one particular program 
that I believe is worthy of additional funding in Conference. Would the 
Senator from West Virginia agree that encouraging the forest and paper 
products industry to achieve greater energy efficiency is a worthy 
goal?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I would agree that is a worthy goal.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Since we agree with that goal, I am sure the Senator 
shares my support for a program within the Department of Energy that 
will encourage the forest and paper products industry to utilize 
resources that are readily available on site to produce energy. By 
utilizing wood and bark residues and spent pulping liquor in a process 
called black liquor gasification, the industry could potentially 
improve on site electricity generation by 300%-400% over existing 
cogeneration systems. Given these benefits, would the Senator agree 
that increasing funding for the black liquor gasification program 
should be pursued in Conference?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I share the Senator's support for the program and will 
support efforts to find additional funding for the program.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the gentleman.


                     Indian Trust Services Programs

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, resolving Indian trust management issues 
should be one of the foremost priorities of this Congress. Ever since 
the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, serious problems have plagued the 
Federal government's trust management efforts. Due to recent 
congressional interest and support, the Department of the Interior has 
been able to make significant progress in reforming its trust 
management systems. Working in collaboration, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee are:
  Instituting a national, state of the art, trust asset management 
system;
  Implementing a revised Trust Management Improvement Project High 
Level Implementation Plan; and
  Instituting improvements in systems, operations, and policies that 
will help ensure that the Federal government meets its fiduciary 
obligations to Indian Tribes and individual American Indians.
  The subcommittee's efforts to provide full funding for the Trust 
Management Improvement Project under the Office of the Special Trustee 
should be applauded. However, I am very concerned that the Senate mark 
does not fully fund the Bureau of Indian Affair's trust services 
programs. All of our efforts to reform trust management could become 
meaningless if BIA can't sustain these reforms by providing the funding 
and staffing to properly manage the trust land that produces trust 
income, to produce accurate and timely land title information, and 
provide timely closing of long open estates.
  I would like to work with the gentleman from Washington, Senator 
Gorton, and other concerned members, as the budget process continues, 
to provide additional resources for BIA's trust programs if funds 
become available.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would be pleased to work with the 
gentleman on that endeavor.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would like to thank the Chairman from Washington State 
for his support. I look forward to working with him to secure the 
resources

[[Page S7095]]

necessary to institutionalize and maintain trust management 
improvements in the future.


                          red mountain project

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to express my 
support for the acquisition of Red Mountain in my home state of 
Colorado. This site should be preserved because of its mining history 
and natural beauty. I look forward to working with the chairman of the 
Interior Subcommittee to ensure its funding in the future.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would like to engage the chairman briefly on an 
important Land and Water Conservation project in my state of Colorado 
called the Red Mountain project. Specifically, the first phase of the 
project owned by Idarado Mining Co.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to oblige the Senator.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Red Mountain project, located in the communities of 
Silverton and Ouray Colorado, is a top priority for the U.S. Forest 
Service this year.
  Red Mountain is a 10,500 acre site that is one of the most nationally 
renowned scenic and historic resources in Southwestern Colorado. Before 
the Silver Crash in 1893, Red Mountain was a vibrant mining town, home 
to thousands of miners and their families, living in four communities 
and working dozens of rich silver mines. Today, the remnants of this 
community have been designated by Ouray and San Juan Counties as a 
historical landmark, and just named one of the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation's 11 most endangered sites in America. In 
addition, Red Mountain contains extensive habitat for endangered 
species as well as other sensitive species. The area offers an 
abundance of recreation opportunities to one million visitors 
annually--from hiking, biking and four-wheel driving to cross country 
skiing and mountaineering.
  As you may know, this year although the Forest Service recommended 
$10 million in its FY01 budget for a Colorado project called Silver 
Mountain, we have received correspondence from the Forest Service 
indicating that this project is no longer viable. In addition, the U.S. 
Forest Service has further indicated that the Red Mountain project is a 
top priority for funding this year. Therefore, I urge you to consider 
allocating the $10 million from the Silver Mountain project to the Red 
Mountain project as the Interior bill moved toward conference.
  Mr. GORTON. Unfortunately, due to our subcommittee's allocation, 
there was not enough room in the Senate mark to cover many good Land 
and Water Conservation Fund projects. As the bill moves forward, if 
there is an opportunity to reconsider this project, I will make every 
effort to do so especially given the unusual circumstance surrounding 
the FY01 US Forest Service budget request. With the budget flexibility 
provided by the Forest Service in its recent correspondence, I feel 
confident that this will help the Red Mountain project as the bill 
moves forward.
  Mr. ALLARD. I sincerely appreciate the Chairman's consideration of my 
request and understand the predicament he was in with respect to his 
allocation. Given the immediate needs of this project, I appreciate the 
Chairman is willing to work with me to find ways to fund the first 
phase of the Red Mountain project this year.
  Mr. GORTON. I will continue to work with you toward that end.


                      lincoln presidential library

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to ask the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee about 
the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library that is planned for 
construction in Springfield, Illinois.
  Currently, the Nation is without an institution that honors the 
legacy of one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. The Lincoln 
Library would serve as museum and interpretive center, allowing 
visitors and scholars to learn about the events that shaped Lincoln's 
life and the contributions that he made to the history of our country.
  Mr. DURBIN. I join my colleague from Illinois in recognizing the need 
for a Lincoln Library. Twelve Presidents, as well as Confederate leader 
Jefferson Davis, currently have presidential libraries. Abraham 
Lincoln, as the man who preserved the Union, truly deserves such an 
institution where people from around the world can learn about his 
great achievements.
  This project enjoys tremendous support at the federal, state, and 
local levels. The entire Illinois Congressional Delegation, the 
Illinois General Assembly, and City of Springfield have all expressed 
their strong support for this library to be completed. The State of 
Illinois has contributed $50 million, and the City of Springfield $10 
million, to begin construction on the interpretive center. In addition, 
the Lincoln Library received $3 million from the FY 2000 Interior 
Appropriations Bill. While these federal funds are greatly appreciated, 
we need a stronger federal commitment to make sure construction of the 
Library can get underway. I would like to ask the Senator from 
Washington if there is any possibility to receive increased funding 
from the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Bill for this important 
endeavor.
  Mr. GORTON. I understand the importance of the Abraham Lincoln 
Presidential Library to my colleagues from Illinois, their 
constituents, and the nation. While the Lincoln Library is an important 
project, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has received many 
important requests, for Fiscal Year 2001, that have received 
precedence, due to the fact that they have been authorized.
  The Lincoln Library project is a worthy project, and if the project 
receives authorization, the Committee will again review the project and 
give it strong consideration.
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Chairman of the Subcommittee.


                         Section 326 of HR 4578

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the record the 
intent of language included in Section 326 of the Interior 
Appropriation fiscal year 2001 bill. I want to point out that 
interagency coordination of Federal resources is desirable and 
certainly something many of us have been supporting as a way to 
eliminate wasteful bureaucratic redundancies. We don't want to spend 
money in Washington duplicating positions and processes. We want money 
in the field helping local communities. The language in Section 326 
refers to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is coordinated 
by an interagency committee that serves that purpose for communities 
seeking technical assistance and opportunities for Federal grants. I 
would like to point out that this initiative has proven to work well 
for the participating communities in my state and others.
  It is my understanding that this language does not prohibit Federal 
agencies funded through this appropriation from working on or 
coordinating with each other to support American Heritage Rivers 
projects. Further, I understand that this language does prohibit the 
use of resources derived from this bill for funding personnel, training 
or administration of the activities of the Council on Environmental 
Quality.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct. This language does not 
prohibit coordination by Federal agencies funded in the bill. It also 
is not intended to penalize or disadvantage communities that seek or 
apply for grants from agencies funded on the bill. Section 326 is 
limited to prohibiting funding transfers for the Council on 
Environmental Quality or the Executive Office of the President. Would 
the Chairman and the Ranking Member agree with this interpretation?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.


                    collaborative forest restoration

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
engage Senator Domenici, Senator Gorton, and Senator Byrd in a brief 
colloquy at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to clarify that it is your intent that $5 
million of the emergency funds available through amendment 3782 will be 
used to implement the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New 
Mexico. This program will be authorized by a bill, S. 1288, that 
Senator Domenici and I introduced together. It already passed the 
Senate last November and will be considered by the full House Resources 
Committee next week. This program creates a mechanism through which 
people with varied interests will be able to work cooperatively with 
the

[[Page S7096]]

Forest Service to conduct forest restoration and value-added projects. 
Improving communication and joint problem solving among individuals and 
groups who are interested in restoring the diversity and productivity 
of forested watersheds can assist us in our efforts to address the 
problem posed by communities at risk from catastrophic wildfire.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, that is correct. However, I would note that the 
emergency needs for on-the-ground work on fuel reduction in New Mexico 
are very great. I understand that the agencies could use more than $50 
million in emergency dollars for projects ready to go in New Mexico by 
the end of the year. The Collaborative Forest Restoration Program will 
help promote additional projects for fuel reduction. Considering the 
terrible toll fires have taken in the state, I hope our federal land 
management agencies will use as much as possible in this emergency 
funding to decrease the risk in New Mexico urban-wildland interface 
communities.
  Mr. GORTON. That is my understanding as well.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I agree with you that $5 million of the emergency 
funds will be used to implement the Collaborative Forest Restoration 
Program.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you all for the clarification.


                           saint croix island

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the year 2004 will mark the 400th 
anniversary of a small French settlement on Saint Croix Island, located 
in the Saint Croix River, which forms the boundary between the State of 
Maine and Canada. The 1604 settlement was the initial site of the first 
permanent settlement in the New World, predating the English settlement 
of 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. Many view the expedition that settled 
on the Island as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America.
  Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the historical significance of the 1604 
settlement of Saint Croix Island and would note that the Island is the 
only international historic site in the National Park System.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank you for your invaluable support of 
efforts to commemorate the Saint Croix Island site. Last year's 
Interior Appropriations bill included my sense-of-the-Senate language 
that the National Park Service should take what steps are necessary to 
ensure that appropriate exhibits are completed by 2004. This year's 
Appropriations Committee mark includes $200,000 in the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service construction budget to assist with the Downeast 
Heritage Center. The Center, which we will make every effort to 
complete in time for the 2004 celebration, will allow state and federal 
agencies and other partners in the project to interpret the French 
settlement efforts at Saint Croix Island and other historical, 
recreational, and cultural aspects of Downeast Maine.
  Mr. GORTON. I have been pleased to support your efforts to 
commemorate the Saint Croix Island settlement, including your work on 
the Downeast Heritage Center. I would note that the National Park 
Service is scheduled to undertake major improvements to its site at Red 
Beach beginning in fiscal year 2002. I support this effort as well.
  Ms. COLLINS. A major, international celebration is expected to 
commemorate the Saint Croix Island settlement's 400th anniversary. 
Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. Department 
of the Interior and the Canadian Department of the Environment, Parks 
Canada has worked diligently to prepare for the event. I am concerned 
that we have not been as enterprising and now face the very real 
possibility of being less than fully prepared for the 2004 celebration. 
Indeed, the National Park Service has informed me that it requires 
planning money in fiscal year 2001 in order to ensure that the Downeast 
Heritage Center will be completed in time. I have introduced 
authorizing legislation, S. 2485, that would permit the National Park 
Service to join with other public and private entities to construct the 
Center. That bill has been reported out of the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources. I have every hope that the bill will 
become law this year. Mr. Chairman, as the FY 2001 Interior 
Appropriations bill goes to conference, I would ask that you do what 
you can to add $340,000 to the National Park Service construction 
budget so that it can assist this year in the planning of the Downeast 
Heritage Center with an eye to its completion by 2004.
  Mr. GORTON. I want to thank the Senator from Maine for again bringing 
this matter to my attention. I understand the importance of this matter 
to the State of Maine and to a much broader, international community. I 
also understand the importance of providing funds soon enough to allow 
completion of the Downeast Heritage Center in time for the 2004 
commemoration. I will be pleased to do what I can to see that your 
request is considered fully in conference.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my good friend again. I know he, in 
particular, appreciates the value of preserving our nation's history 
and its cultural heritage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of Interior and Related 
Agencies.
  I want to express my support for the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative. This bill contains a provision that prohibits funds in the 
Act from being given to or used to provide support for the Executive 
Office of the President in coordinating the American Heritage Rivers. 
It also prevents the Council on Environmental Quality from receiving 
funds and support to coordinate and oversee the initiative.
  The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which redirects federal 
resources without new spending, has greatly improved the Detroit River, 
a designated American Heritage River, through shoreline development and 
protection of wetlands. In the ten months that the River Navigator for 
the Greater Detroit American Heritage River has been in operation, over 
$1 million has been acquired for Detroit River projects. This program 
also assists communities in the use of Federal resources to help 
communities revitalize parks--to help celebrate their history and their 
heritage.
  This initiative needs our support and full participation and I 
strongly oppose any language which would put this program in jeopardy.


                      NATIONAL PARK SNOWMOBILE BAN

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over this 
egregious and unjustified action by the Department of the Interior that 
will have severe negative economic consequences on citizens and 
communities in Idaho and many other states around the country. The 
Department has announced that it intends to ban recreational snowmobile 
use in virtually every national park that now allows them, although 
snowmobiles have been an established use in these parks for more than 
four decades. This announcement was made by Interior Assistant 
Secretary Don Barry on April 27th in an orchestrated press conference 
that amounted to a public lynching of the snowmobile community. This 
new policy was made without consultation with Congress, the snowmobile 
manufacturers, the nearly four million snowmobile users, or with the 
many gateway communities to the national parks that are dependent on 
business generated by snowmobile visitors. Although Assistant Secretary 
Barry claimed that this ban is necessary because of air pollution, 
noise and wildlife disturbance caused by snowmobiles, the truth is that 
there is simply no evidence that snowmobiles cause such harm. In fact, 
in a shocking admission before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee Mr. Barry conceded that snowmobiles had never been 
found in violation of any environmental standard in any national park. 
I understand Mr. Barry has since left the Department to be employed by 
the Wilderness Society, an organization that has actively advocated the 
exclusion of snowmobiles from national parks.
  The major snowmobile manufacturers have made great progress in 
producing machines that are cleaner and quieter than ever before. The 
manufacturers, the snowmobile users and the gateway communities are 
willing to work with the Department of the Interior to develop 
reasonable plans and programs to achieve agreed to environmental goals. 
I believe this is the best course for the Department to follow.
  I bow to no one in my love for our majestic national parks. I fully 
support reasonable and reasoned efforts to protect and preserve them. 
But to ban

[[Page S7097]]

snowmobiles completely in the national parks is totally unnecessary. It 
is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it is the duty of Congress to 
uphold the law and prevent this from taking place.
  I feel it is important for all to understand that snow machines do 
not run roughshod over the national parks as has been stated on the 
floor. Travelways are designated and adhered to. The issue of where 
snowmachines travel is a matter of management by the park service, not 
of whether or not they should be in our national parks. I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter from Dr. Lori Fussell that explains a number of 
misconceptions on pollution from snowmobiles be printed in the Record 
to clarify several of these issues.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Environmental Engineering &


                                                     Research,

                                         Wilson, WY, June 5, 2000.
     Hon. James V. Hansen,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Comments on Testimony Given at the May 25, 2000 Hearing Held By United 
  States House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks and 
        Public Lands, Regarding Snowmobile Use in National Parks

       I am writing to you today because I have had the 
     opportunity to read through some of the testimony offered at 
     the May 25, 2000 hearing held by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives' Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 
     Lands regarding snowmobile use in National Parks. And, in my 
     expert opinion, some of the testimony regarding pollution 
     from snowmobiles was incorrect or misleading. I feel a need, 
     in the interest of good science, to providing information to 
     the Subcommittee to correct these errors.
       Before I go into details, let me make several points about 
     the information contained in this letter. First, the intent 
     of this letter is simply to correct misinformation that was 
     presented to the Subcommittee. I am not being paid by any 
     organization to submit my opinion to you and I have no 
     personal interest in the outcome of the hearings. I am not a 
     snowmobiler and do not particularly care for snowmobiles as 
     they presently exist. In fact, I was the first person to 
     publish any scientific research on exposure to snowmobile 
     pollution and believe very strongly that actions must be 
     taken to significantly reduce snowmobile emissions in our 
     National Parks. Human exposure to snowmobile pollution in 
     Yellowstone National Park (YNP), in particular, is 
     unacceptable. However, I believe just as strongly that 
     decisions about emissions are reduced (visitor limits, 
     technological improvements, and/or banning snowmobiles) 
     should be based on accurate information.
       Second, I do not any way want to imply that the testimony 
     given to the Subcommittee by any individual or organization 
     was intentionally incorrect or misleading. There is a lot of 
     information circulating about pollution from snowmobiles. It 
     is difficult to separate fact from fiction.
       Third, I have established myself as an expert in the field 
     of snowmobile emissions. I have attached my Curriculum Vitae 
     to this letter as documentation of my credentials and will be 
     happy to provide further documentation of my experience in 
     this area. My comments will be limited to the information 
     presented regarding snowmobile pollution. I do not have the 
     expertise necessary to comment as an ``expert'' on any other 
     issue regarding snowmobile use in the National Parks.
       Fourth, I do not have access to all of the testimony given 
     at the hearings. I only have copies of the statements 
     prepared by the following individuals: Michael Scott, Kevin 
     Collins, Sean Smith, Mark Simonich, Donald Barry, Kim Rapp, 
     Michael Forsman, Jerry Johnson, and Teri Manning. Therefore, 
     my comments are limited to the testimony offered by these 
     individuals. While I can not comment on any information 
     presented by any other individual at this time, I would be 
     happy to do so if this information were provided to me.
       The rest of this letter will simply outline information 
     related to pollution from snowmobiles contained in the above 
     testimonies that I find requires clarification or correction. 
     In each case, I will list direct quotes from testimonies in 
     italics. I will then reference the specific testimony in 
     parenthesis at the end of the quote. My response and 
     explanation will follow.


                              i. testimony

       ``Carbon monoxide levels in the (Yellowstone) park 
     currently exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
     will continue to be exceeded unless snowmobiles are 
     removed.'' Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, 
     Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
       ``It is their position (the Wyoming Department of 
     Environmental Quality) that there have been no documented 
     violations of the Clean Air Act within Yellowstone National 
     Park. Not Ever.'' (Testimony of Kim Raap, Manager, Wyoming 
     State Trails Association)
       ``The DEIS issued by the Park Service confuses data 
     collected for personal exposure measurements (50 ppm) to the 
     ambient air quality standards. The Montana Ambient Air 
     Quality Standard (MAAQS) 1 hour-maximum CO standard is 23 ppm 
     as monitored according to the standard. Let me clearly state, 
     air quality standards, both federal and the more stringent 
     Montana standards, have not been exceeded in Yellowstone 
     National Park. The DEIS incorrectly states that this 
     happened. While air quality did reach 90% of the Montana 
     standard last winter, the standard was not exceeded.'' 
     (Testimony of Mark Simonich, Director, Montana Department of 
     Environmental Quality)
     Response
       The testimony given by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition 
     (GYC) clearly contradicts the testimony of the Wyoming State 
     Trails Association (WSTA) and the Montana Department of 
     Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Who is correct? WSTA and MDEQ 
     are correct. There is no data to support the claim that 
     ambient air in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) is violating 
     National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQA) for carbon 
     monoxide (CO).
       So, if NAAQS have not been violated in YNP, what is the 
     problem with emissions from snowmobiles in YNP? The problem 
     is that research conducted by both the National Park Service 
     (NPS) and me have shown that YNP employees and snowmobilers 
     can be exposed to high levels of CO. And, since the presence 
     of CO indicates a probable presence of hydrocarbon emissions, 
     the potential exists for significant air toxic exposure as 
     well.

     NOTE. A comprehensive study of employees and visitor exposure 
     to pollution from snowmobiles is due to be published by Dr. 
     Norm Kado of the University of California at Davis in the 
     upcoming months. The information contained in this report is 
     not currently available to the public.
     Explanation
       The NAAQS for CO is 35 parts per million (ppm) for a one-
     hour sampling period and 9 ppm for an eight-hour sampling 
     period. (The state of Montana one-hour CO standard is 23 ppm, 
     stricter than the federal standard.) A violation of NAAQS is 
     recorded if the standard is exceeded more than once in a 
     year.
       In order for data to be used to determine compliance with 
     NAAQS, it must be collected according to standardized 
     sampling methods outline in The Code of Federal Regulations, 
     Title 40, Parts 53 and 58. Sampling locations must meet 
     proper siting criteria in order to assure that the data is 
     representative of ambient air. The sampling criteria include 
     placing the sampling probe at a height of approximately ten 
     feet and at a distance of at least seven to thirty feet 
     from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. Additionally, 
     the probe must be at least 33 feet from the nearest 
     intersection.
       There is currently a properly sited and maintained CO 
     monitor located at the West Entrance to Yellowstone National 
     park, operated by the Montana Department of Environmental 
     Quality (MDEQ). And, while relatively high CO measurements 
     have been recorded by the MDEQ, they have never exceeded the 
     national or Montana standards.
       So, why do some organizations believe that NAAQS have been 
     exceeded in Yellowstone National Park? The MDEQ testimony 
     explains this. Many organizations continue to confuse data 
     taken to determine personal exposure to snowmobile pollution 
     with data taken to determine degradation of ambient air.
       CO samples have been taken by the park service (on the 
     roadway) at the West entrance to Yellowstone National Park 
     (YNP) and on the road between West Yellowstone and Old 
     Faithful. I have personally taken CO samples on the roadway 
     at Flagg Ranch, the south entrance to YNP. CO concentrations 
     collected on these roadways have reached levels in excess of 
     35 ppm for a 1-hour time period. However, data collected on a 
     roadway should not and can not be interpreted as indicative 
     of overall ambient air quality. It is only indicative of 
     personal exposure. It can not be used to determine compliance 
     with NAAQS.


                              2. testimony

       ``The highest carbon monoxide levels in the nation were 
     recorded at Yellowstone's West Entrance during winters in the 
     1990s.'' (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, 
     Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
     Response
       This statement is false.
     Explanation
       As mentioned in the explanation of Testimony #1, the MDEQ 
     operates properly sited and maintained CO monitoring station 
     at the West Entrance of YNP. And, no state or federal 
     standards for CO have ever been exceeded at this location. 
     The location is classified by the Environmental protection 
     agency (EPA) as ``in attainment''.
       As of August 10, 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency 
     lists 20 areas in the United States as Nonattainment areas 
     for CO pollution (this information can be found in the EPA 
     Green Book at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
cnsum.html). These areas of the United States clearly have a 
     larger CO problem than does the West Entrance of Yellowstone 
     National Park.
       NOTE: Perhaps this testimony refers to exposure data taken 
     at the West Entrance of Yellowstone. If so, this testimony 
     would still be false. There are instances of CO exposures 
     nationwide that exceed the CO exposure concentrations 
     measured at West Yellowstone and Flagg Ranch. In his text, 
     Automobiles and Pollution (Published by the Society of 
     Automotive Engineers, 1995), Paul Degobert states that ``up 
     to 250 ppm of CO can be

[[Page S7098]]

     found inside passenger compartments'' of automobiles. Again, 
     I must stress that is not appropriate to compare NAAQS data 
     to exposure data.


                              3. testimony

       ``One snowmobile emits 225 times more carbon monoxide than 
     an automobile. One snowmobile emits 1000 times more 
     hydrocarbons than an automobile.'' (Testimony of Michael D. 
     Scott, Program Director, Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
     Response
       This statement is false.
     Explanation
       In February of this year, the National Park Service Air 
     Resources Division (NPS ARD) issued a report titled, ``air 
     Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage in National 
     Parks.'' Of this report, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition 
     (GYC) writes:
       ``The final report was checked and validated by scientists 
     involved in the original research. That review, combined with 
     the depth and breadth of the studies (they began in 1995 and 
     covered emissions, ambient levels of pollutants, deposition 
     of pollutants in the snowpack, human exposure and more) make 
     the report the most comprehensive and credible assessment of 
     Yellowstone's air pollution to date.'' (GYX website, 6/2/00, 
     http://hosts2.in-tch.com/www.greateryellowstone.org/
wintcruse.html)
       I agree with the GYC assessment of the February 2000 NPS 
     ARD report.
       The NPS ARD report estimates that ``a snowmobile operating 
     for 4 hours, using a conventional 2-stroke engine, can emit 
     between 10 and 70 times more carbon monoxide and between 45 
     and 250 times more hydrocarbons than an automobile driven 100 
     miles.'' These NPS ARD estimates are significantly different 
     than the estimates in the above GYC testimony.


                              4. testimony

       ``These (two-stroke) engines create dangerous levels of 
     airborne toxins including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 
     ozone, particulate matter, aldehydes, 1,3 butadiene, and 
     extremely persistent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 
     (PAHs).'' (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, 
     Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
       ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and hydrocarbon emissions from 
     snowmobile two-cycle engines are also a major concern due to 
     their contribution to ground level ozone.'' (Testimony of 
     Sean Smith, Public Lands Director, Bluewater Network)
     Response
       While most of the pollutants listed above are emitted from 
     two-stroke engines, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
     ozone are not pollutants of concern with respect to 
     snowmobile emissions.
     Explanation
        Two-cycle engines (including those used by 
     snowmobiles) emit less NOX than four-stroke 
     engines (including those used by automobiles).
       The February 2000 NPS ARD report estimates that only 2% of 
     the NOX pollution in YNP comes from snowmobile 
     engines (with the remainder of the NOX pollution 
     coming from automobiles, busses, snow coaches, and 
     recreational vehicles). Although the NPS ARD report does not 
     compare the NOX emissions from an automobile to 
     the NOX emissions from a snowmobile, it does 
     contain the data necessary to make this comparison. I did the 
     calculations (using the same methodology used in the NPS ARD 
     report to compare automobile and snowmobile CO and UHC 
     emissions) and came up with the following: one automobile 
     emits 1.5 to 6.8 times as much NOX as one 
     snowmobile.
       Low NOX emissions from snowmobile engines are 
     confirmed by emission data taken at the South West Research 
     Institute (summarized in the NPS ARD report) and also by 
     snowpack chemistry analysis performed by George Ingersoll of 
     the United States Geological Survey. Ingersoll's paper 
     titled, ``Snowpack Chemistry as an Indicator of Pollutant 
     Emission Levels from Motorized Winter Vehicles in Yellowstone 
     National Park'' (published at the Western Snow Conference in 
     1997) concludes ``that regional activities--not local 
     snowmachine traffic--seem to be controlling nitrate 
     deposition.''
        Ozone, as the Bluewater Network testimony 
     correctly states, is not emitted by snowmobiles. Ozone is 
     formed via a photochemical reaction between NOX 
     and volatile organic compounds (VOCs are a specific class of 
     unburned hydrocarbons). While snowmobiles do emit a 
     significant amount of VOCs, NOX emissions from 
     snowmobiles are minimal (as explained previously).
       Even when NOX are present in significant amounts 
     in areas frequented by snowmobiles (from regional sources) 
     the cold temperatures in which snowmobiles operate are not 
     conducive to ozone formation. ``Strong sunlight and hot 
     weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful 
     concentrations in the air'' (from Ozone: Good Up High, Bad 
     Nearby, EPA/451K-97-002, October 1997). Snowmobiles operate 
     at temperatures near freezing and below.
       For the reasons listed above, significant ozone formation 
     due to pollution from snowmobiles is not a potential problem.


                              5. TESTIMONY

       ``Recent tests conducted by the SouthWest Research 
     Institute confirm that the two stroke engines of snowmobiles 
     emit hundreds of times more pollution than a modern 
     automobile.'' (Testimony of Sean Smith, Public Lands 
     Director, Bluewater Network)
     Response
       This statement can not be substantiated. The Southwest 
     Research Institute (SwRI) has not published the statistic 
     cited.
     Explanation
       The SwRI reports cited above only contain data on 
     snowmobile engine emissions. They do not contain a comparison 
     of snowmobile and automobile emissions.
       In order to make the comparison between snowmobiles and 
     automobiles, one must make a series of assumptions regarding 
     snowmobile and automobile usage. The results of the 
     comparison are highly dependent upon the assumptions made.
       The best estimates available that compare snowmobile and 
     automobile emissions are contained in the February 2000 NPS 
     ARD report. The NPS ARD report bases its calculations on the 
     SwRI data. As I stated before, the report estimates ``a 
     snowmobile operating for 4 hours, using a conventional 2-
     stroke engine, can emit between 10 and 70 times more carbon 
     monoxide and between 45 and 250 times more hydrocarbons than 
     an automobile driven 100 miles.'' Additionally, 
     NOX emissions from automobiles are 1.5 to 6.8 
     times greater than NOx emissions form snowmobiles.


                              6. TESTIMONY

       ``Given current levels of snowmobile use in Yellowstone 
     National Park, this (discharge of 25-30% of the fuel mixture 
     from a snowmobile engine) translates into the equivalent of 
     five tanker truck loads of gasoline being dumped along park 
     roads each winter.'' (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program 
     Director, Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
       ``Snowmobile emissions are deposited directly onto the 
     snowpack of the parks. This snowpack pollution translates 
     directly into pollution of the parks' waters as the snow 
     melts. Snowmobiles each year emit the equivalent of five 
     tanker truck loads onto the snowpack of Yellowstone.'' 
     (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, Greater 
     Yellowstone Coalition)
       About 5000 gallons of gasoline and 250 quarts of 2 cycle 
     oil was spilled by National Park Service snowmobiles alone.'' 
     (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, Greater 
     Yellowstone Coalition)
     Response
       It is ludicrous to compare potential water quality impacts 
     from snowmobile emissions to the catastrophic environmental 
     devastation associated with a tanker spill.
     Explanation
       The fate and transport of pollutants in the environment is 
     a very complex field of study. However, it does not take a 
     scientist to realize that if most of the unburned fuel and 
     oil from snowmobiles is emitted in gaseous form (as air 
     pollution), the total hydrocarbon pollution emitted by 
     snowmobiles in YNP will not be found in the snowpack.
       Only a percentage of the total snowmobile hydrocarbon 
     pollution is deposited onto the snowpack. George Ingersoll 
     (``Effects of snowmobile Use on Snowpack Chemistry in 
     Yellowstone National Park'', United States Geological Survey, 
     1998, Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4148) has 
     measured elevated levels of hydrocarbon pollution in 
     snowpacks near snowmobile use. However, he reported that 
     these elevated hydrocarbon levels ``were lower, in general, 
     than concentrations at hundreds of locations nationwide 
     representing a full spectrum of watershed settings ranging 
     from subalpine to urban.''
       In his 1998 investigation, Ingersoll also performed a 
     preliminary analysis of snowmelt runoff in YNP. He concluded 
     that ``snowmelt runoff chemistry from five of the snow-
     sampling sites indicated that elevated emission levels in 
     snow along highway corridors (used by snowmobiles in YNP) are 
     generally dispersed into surrounding watersheds at 
     concentrations below levels likely to threaten human or 
     ecosystem health.'' He also concluded that ``localized, 
     episodic acidification of aquatic ecosystems in these high 
     snowmobile-traffic areas may be possible, but verification 
     will require more detailed chemical analyses of snowmelt 
     runoff.''
       Bottom line, the data shows some percentage of snowmobile 
     hydrocarbon emissions (the unburned fuel and oil) ends up in 
     snowpack along roadways. And, some percentage of this 
     snowpack pollution will later be found in the snowmelt (most 
     volatile organic compounds will tend to volatilize into the 
     gaseous phase during the spring melt-off). To date, no data 
     has been collected that shows snowmelt pollution from 
     snowmobiles at concentrations likely to threaten human or 
     ecosystem health. Only a potential for localized, episodic 
     acidification has been reported in the scientific literature. 
     Clearly, this potential, localized, episodic acidification 
     does not pose the same environmental risk as that of a tanker 
     spill in Park waters.

     NOTE: I am aware that a more detailed investigation of water 
     quality impacts from snowmobiles was undertaken over the 
     winter of 1999-2000 in YNP. The results of this study may 
     provide new information regarding water quality impacts from 
     snowmobiles. However, a report on this research has not yet 
     been published and I do not have access to the raw data.


                              7. Testimony

       ``The components of snowpack pollution from snowmobile 
     emissions can include toxic compounds such as MTBE (a fuel 
     additive), and polycyclic acromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such 
     as benzene, xylene, toluene, and formaldehyde.'' (Testimony 
     of Michael D. Scott, Program Director, Greater Yellowstone 
     Coalition)
     Responses
       This is a true statement, but it requires clarification for 
     proper perspective.

[[Page S7099]]

     Explanation
       The components of snowpack pollution from snowmobile 
     emissions can include the toxic compounds listed above. 
     However, the mere presence of a pollutant does not indicate 
     environmental degradation. The pollutant must also be present 
     at concentrations that are high enough to be of concern (even 
     oxygen can be considered a toxic compound at high 
     concentrations . . . but it does no harm to us at lower 
     concentrations). As described in the explanation for 
     Testimony #6, George Ingersoll (``Effects of Snowmobile Use 
     on Snowpack Chemistry in Yellowstone National Park'', United 
     States Geological Survey, 1998, Water Resources 
     Investigations Report 99-4148) did find elevated levels of 
     hydrocarbon pollution in snowpacks near snowmobile use. 
     However, he reported that these elevated hydrocarbon levels 
     ``were lower, in general, than concentration at hundreds of 
     locations nationwide representing a full spectrum of 
     watershed settings ranging from subalpine to urban.'' And his 
     preliminary research found that ``snowmelt runoff chemistry 
     from five of the snow-sampling sites indicated that elevated 
     emission levels in snow along highway corridors (used by 
     snowmobiles in YNP) are generally dispersed into surrounding 
     watersheds at concentrations below levels likely to threaten 
     human or ecosystem health.'' So, despite the fact that these 
     compounds can appear in the snowpack, they have not yet been 
     found in high enough concentrations to cause concern.


                              8. Testimony

       ``Unburned fuel (emitted by snowmobiles) contains many 
     toxic compounds including benzene, toluene, xylene, and the 
     extremely persistent suspected human carginogen MTBE (methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether).'' (Testimony of Michael D. Scott, 
     Program Director, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition)
       ``Contaminants released by two-stroke snowmobile engines 
     include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).'' (Testimony of Kevin Collins, 
     Legislative Representative, National Parks and Conservation 
     Association)
     Response
       These are true statements, but they require clarification 
     for proper perspective.
     Explanation
       Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is a fuel additive that 
     is required in many areas to increase the oxygen content in 
     fuels. This is done in an effort to reduce hydrocarbon and 
     carbon monoxide pollution from automobiles and other mobile 
     sources. MTBE is also added to fuels (in smaller 
     concentrations) by some refineries to boost octane rating. 
     MTBE can only be emitted by snowmobiles if the fuel they are 
     burning contains MTBE as a additive. Snowmobile engines to 
     not ``manufacture'' MTBE.
       The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issued a press 
     release on January 18, 2000 that states ``gasoline in 
     Minnesota does not contain MTBE as an additive''. Therefore 
     snowmobiles in Minnesota (the site of Voyageurs National 
     Park) do not emit MTBE as a pollutant.
       None of the other states with significant National Park 
     snowmobile usage (Michigan-Pictured Rocks, Montana-
     Yellowstone, and Wyoming-Grand Tetlon and Yellowstone) 
     require the use MTBE as an oxygenate in fuel. Fuels in these 
     states are oxygenated with ethanol, if oxygenated fuels are 
     being used to curb air pollution (as in West Yellowstone, 
     Montana). However, the states of Michigan, Wyoming, and 
     Montana do allow the use of MTBE as an octane booster. 
     Therefore, it is probable that some percentage of the fuel 
     sold in these states does contain MTBE.
       A fact sheet on MTBE from the Michigan Department of 
     Environmental Quality (available at http://www/
deq.state.mi.us/std.mtbe.html) reports that a 1998 survey of 
     Michigan fuel revealed that five percent of the fuel sampled 
     in Michigan contained MTBE. I have not located any statistics 
     on the amount of MTBE added as an octane booster to Montana 
     and Wyoming.

     NOTE: MTBE has been detected in the snowpack along snowmobile 
     traffic corridors in Yellowstone National Park (George 
     Ingersoll, 1998 study previously cited), indicating that some 
     of the fuel sold in Montana and Wyoming does, in fact, 
     contain MTBE concentrations found in the snowpack were not 
     high enough to cause concern.


                              9. testimony

       ``While we are fully supportive of the development of 
     cleaner and quieter (snowmobile) technology, to date, there 
     are no definitive, comprehensive studies which document the 
     degree to which four-stroke engines will mitigate the adverse 
     impact that snowmobiles have on our parks.'' (Testimony of 
     Donald J. Barry, Assistant Secretary, Fish Wildlife and 
     Parks, Department of the Interior.
     Response
       This is a true statement. However, in September of this 
     year I will be publishing information about snowmobile 
     emission and noise reductions that were attained with the use 
     of a four-stroke engine. The information is summarized below.
     Explanation
       As the organizer and co-founder of the Society of 
     Automotive Engineers Clean Snowmobile Challenge 2000 (a non-
     partisan student design competition to improve snowmobile 
     emissions and noise) I offer the following results as a 
     glimpse at what is possible in a short amount of time, using 
     existing technology. In doing so, I do not attempt to define 
     what emissions or noise levels are appropriate in National 
     Parks. I am simply reporting what has been documented as an 
     easily implemented improvement over the status-quo.
       The University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 
     won the SAE CSC2000 with a four-stroke snowmobile that was 
     designed and manufactured in less than 5 months by a team of 
     undergraduate engineering students. When compared to a 
     traditional two-stroke snowmobile, the four stoke entry 
     reduced hydrocarbon emissions by more than 99.5% (NOTE: We 
     could not detect the snowmobile's hydrocarbon emissions. The 
     99.5% reduction cited represents the limit of detectability 
     of the test method). Carbon monoxide emissions were reduced 
     by 46%. Fuel economy was increased to 27.6 miles per gallon 
     (a 226% improvement). The sound level (measured 50 feet from 
     the road at wide open throttle) measured just 66.8 dbA. This 
     sound level reduction corresponds to an 80-90% reduction in 
     the distance snowmobiles can currently be heard in National 
     Parks.
       Detailed information on the SAE CSC2000 is currently 
     available on the competition website at: http://www.sae.org/
students/snow.htm. The results will also be available in a 
     peer-reviewed paper I am writing, scheduled for publication 
     on September 11, 2000.
       Thank you, Representative Hansen, for the time you have 
     taken to read this lengthy letter. I will be happy to answer 
     any questions you or other Subcommittee members might have 
     and provide further documentation of the facts contained in 
     this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lori M. Fussell.


                     SNOWMOBILING IN NATIONAL PARKS

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
this important discussion concerning the National Park Service's recent 
proposal to substantially curb recreational snowmobile use within the 
national park system.
  I believe that virtually everyone can agree that snowmobile use in 
national parks must be carefully managed in a manner which balances 
legitimate recreational needs with a concern for public safety and 
environmental protection. Nobody argues that snowmobiles should be 
allowed in every area of every park and without regard for noise, speed 
or numbers. But at the same time, snowmobiling is a recreational option 
that should not be totally banned or limited in an unreasonable manner.
  I appreciate that the National Park Service has now ``clarified'' its 
earlier statements which created the impression that an across-the-
board ban on snowmobiles in all parts of all parks was about to be 
established. The Park Service tells us that rather than a ban, it wants 
to curtail snowmobile use on park lands.
  I will follow this new approach carefully. Again, few South Dakotans 
have objections to reasonable rules designed to protect the 
environment, protect wildlife habitat and address issues of noise, 
safety and numbers. But regulations to properly address these matters 
do not require a total ban or draconian limitations on snowmobile use. 
I will urge the National Park Service to listen to all segments of the 
American public in a careful, thoughtful manner and seek to strike a 
sensible balance that will protect our natural heritage but also allow 
for reasonable and well-managed winter recreation opportunities for all 
our citizens. It certainly would be better for the National Park 
Service to administratively arrive at balanced final rules, than to 
necessitate legislative action on the part of Congress. If legislation 
is ultimately required on this matter, I will work with both my House 
and Senate colleagues in a bipartisan manner to secure a balanced final 
resolution of this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Friday morning, July 12th, the House of 
Representatives passed the Valles Caldera Preservation Act by a vote of 
377-45, and it will soon be signed by the President.
  Later this month, the Secretary of Agriculture will take possession 
of the Baca ranch. He will be charged with the task of managing the 
Valles Caldera National Preserve for an interim period until the Trust 
is appointed.
  In order for the Preserve to be opened to the public at the earliest 
possible time, the Secretary and the Trust will have to complete a 
substantial inventory, put together interim plans, and provide for the 
immediate requirements of basic public safety and law enforcement.
  The Department of Agriculture has provided us with a breakdown of 
proposed activities over the next year, and estimates that they will 
need about

[[Page S7100]]

$990,000 to prepare the Preserve for an eager public, over half of 
which will go into planning and law enforcement activities.
  Once the Trust takes over, hopefully in about 6 months, funds will 
transfer to them, so that they can take over management 
responsibilities for the Preserve.
  The $990,000 will be taken out of the budget of the Department of the 
Interior Solicitor's office, the bureaucrat who recently issued an 
opinion to federalize several reclamation projects in New Mexico.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, each year I carefully review the annual 
Interior appropriations bill to analyze how the Federal Government is 
meeting its fiscal obligations and priorities to protect our nation's 
resources and provide needed funding for Native American programs. I 
commend the Interior subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton, and the 
ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their hard work in completing this 
year's funding recommendations that will provide critical funding for 
National Parks, energy programs, the Indian Health Service, and the 
other resource management responsibilities within the Department of 
Interior.
  Unfortunately, the appropriations committee has also continued the 
irresponsible practice of loading up an important bill such as this one 
with unrequested, low-priority earmarks and legislative riders. This 
Interior appropriations bill has once again become the target for 
members to tack on parochial spending for their own special interest 
projects. In this bill, I found nearly $280 million for porkbarrel 
spending projects, a level that is unacceptably higher than previous 
years.
  This type of unnecessary and low-priority spending is particularly 
egregious since each agency within the Department of Interior is 
struggling to meet its statutory responsibilities to protect our 
nation's parks, wildlife refuges and trust obligations to Native 
Americans. These agencies all report exceptionally large, multimillion 
backlogs for maintenance and repairs. Yet, instead of directing funding 
to substantially eradicate these backlogs, the appropriations committee 
instead chooses to divert federal spending toward locale-specific 
earmarks that either were not included in the budget request, increase 
funding above the requested level for other specific projects, or fund 
unauthorized projects.
  I recognize that various communities around the country look to the 
federal government to help protect them against wildfire threats or set 
aside funding to preserve open space to build parks for their children. 
Many of the projects in this bill will no doubt address some of these 
important needs and are deserving of federal investments. However, I 
fail to understand why it is necessary to load up this bill with 
erroneous earmarks that appear to pander more to special interests 
rather than address our highest resource management needs. I believe 
that we should abide by our established budget procedures by allocating 
federal assistance to those projects that undergo a normal, merit-based 
prioritization process that protects the interests of the American 
taxpayer, and employs the most cost-effective approach.
  While individually, the amounts earmarked for these projects may not 
seem substantial, collectively they add up to unmitigated pork. Where 
does some of this pork go?
  An increase of $600,000 is included for the Alaska Sealife Center for 
an eider recovery research program, a center which already received 
supplemental funding in the recently passed Military Construction 
conference agreement. Other locale-specific earmarks include $200,000 
for a direct pass-through grant to Long Live the Lings to coordinate 
the various hatchery managers and governmental jurisdictions in 
Washington state; $500,000 to continue with the retrofit of the 
research vessel (the R/V) Sturgeon) for use by the Great Lakes Science 
Center; $5,000,000 for maintenance and snow removal on the Beartooth 
Highway; and, an increase of $500,000 above the requested level for the 
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) to begin construction of a 
base facility at Hilo, Hawaii in conjunction with the SAO Submillimeter 
Array initiative.

  These projects may be important to the local communities for which 
they are targeted, but are they really the highest national priorities? 
Are these projects fundamental to carrying out the resource management 
functions of the Interior Department? Unfortunately, it matters little 
since I, nor the majority of my colleagues, had any input about whether 
funding these projects is the wisest and best use of Federal dollars.
  We further abandon our budget principles by funding projects that 
have not been authorized by Congress. For example, the proposed 
Wheeling National Heritage Area in West Virginia has been the recipient 
of an annual earmark for the past several years, including a 
recommendation for a $500,000 earmark in this bill. While this does not 
appear to be problematic, what is not well known is that this 
particular heritage area has not yet been authorized by Congress. This 
flies directly in the face of the statement by the Interior 
appropriations committee which specifically pointed out that it would 
not fund projects unless Congress authorized them. Again, this project 
itself is not necessarily objectionable to me and may have good reason 
to be funded. But what is appalling is that these funds are 
specifically earmarked for a project not yet authorized, thereby 
clearly sidestepping a process that other heritage area projects are 
expected to adhere to in order to receive federal assistance.
  It is also alarming to find, buried in this bill, a specific earmark 
of two million dollars to the Sealaska Corporation to develop an 
ethanol manufacturing facility in Alaska, the purpose of which is 
intended to support a declining timber industry in the Alaska region. 
To further assist these impacted communities in Alaska, an additional 
five million earmark is provided for a three year timber supply for the 
Tongass National Forest, language added securing preferential treatment 
of Alaska's surplus red cedar for sales abroad, and hundreds of 
thousands more are directed to other forest management activities to 
benefit the Alaskan region.
  I admit that I am not an authority on the matters affecting local 
communities in Alaska. However, what I take particular exception to is 
the fact that this earmark benefits the ethanol industry, a fiscal 
boondoggle industry that already reaps substantial benefits from 
existing federal subsidies at the expense of taxpayers. It is a blatant 
insult to taxpayers to ask them to supplement the ethanol industry even 
more by spending two million to build one ethanol manufacturing 
facility for a region that is receiving more than adequate fiscal 
attention.
  With the many identified priorities stated by the subcommittee 
members, such as addressing wildfire emergencies and health care for 
Native Americans, little to no information is provided as to why 
certain organizations are deserve of direct earmarks, such as $176,000 
for the Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association, and one million for the 
National Conservation Training Center. With no information to explain 
the national importance of these programs, I find it troubling that the 
subcommittee tends to specifically favor certain organizations for 
funding when these organizations should also be subjected to a 
competitive and merit-review process.
  As I stated before, there is undoubtably considerable merit to some 
of the programs for which funding is earmarked in this bill. However, 
until Congress ends the typical arbitrary spending which violates the 
integrity of the federal budget process, I have no choice but to 
highlight the practice of adding and earmarking funds for programs and 
activities that appear to serve narrowly tailored interests at the 
expense of the national interest.
  Even in this time of an unprecedented budget surplus, we have a 
responsibility to the American public to exercise fiscal responsibility 
and discretion rather than allowing this type of unchecked spending to 
continue. It is shameful the way we are squandering the public's trust 
and money, and it will be the burden of the taxpayers to shell out the 
$280 million for needless and wasteful spending included in this bill.
  The list of objectionable provisions in this bill that I compiled is 
more than 19 pages long and is unfortunately too lengthy to print in 
the Record.

[[Page S7101]]

However, the list is available from my Senate office.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Leahy and Torricelli in offering 
an amendment to the Interior Appropriations for FY 2001. Our amendment 
would provide $4 million in funding for the maintenance of a Northeast 
Home Heating Oil Reserve, with an offset of $3 million from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Petroleum account and $1 million from 
the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shales Account.
  This amendment is critically important to the people of Connecticut 
and throughout the Northeast because most homes and many schools and 
businesses rely on oil for heating. Last winter, the Northeast region 
was gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing oil prices.
  Last week, the President issued a directive to establish a heating 
oil reserve in the Northeast by exchanging crude oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve for 2 million barrels of heating oil to be stored 
across the Northeast. In addition, the Secretary of Energy transmitted 
a permanent plan that must lay before Congress for 60 days. Our 
amendment would fund the maintenance of that reserve and we will 
continue to work with the members of the Energy Committee to authorize 
a trigger that is appropriate to the Northeast situation.
  Mr. President, with increased demand for gasoline and refineries at 
or near capacity, experts agree that heating oil stocks will remain low 
going into the winter season. Even now, the heating oil stocks are more 
than 60 percent lower than last year. The writing is on the wall.
  This amendment will mean that the heating oil reserve will be 
maintained. Heating oil will be stored within the Northeast. Residents 
of my state need not have to choose among filling their oil tanks, 
putting food on the table, paying for their medication or paying the 
rent or mortgage.
  I thank my colleagues, especially Chairman Gorton and Senator Byrd 
for their interest in this amendment and I urge its immediate 
acceptance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Today I want to express my support for 
the NEA which plays an important role in preserving our culture and is 
funded in this bill.
  The bill before us provides $105 million for the NEA, an increase of 
$7.3 million over FY 2000. This is of vital importance to the survival 
of the arts in both California and in the United States. National 
interest in the arts continues to increase. The number of artists in 
America has more than doubled since 1970. Today, the arts industry 
supports nearly 1.3 million jobs nationally; 391,200 indirectly, and 
908,800 directly.
  Despite this growth, the United States still spends nearly 50 times 
less on the arts than in any other countries: While the U.S. spends 
$6.00 per person on the arts, the United Kingdom spends $26.00; France 
spends $57.00; Finland spends up to $91.00.
  In 1999, NEA funded projects in every county in the state of 
California, awarding 210 grants totaling $5.6 million. To date, in FY 
2000, the NEA has provided 225 grants in California, totaling $7.3 
million.
  Here are three examples of how the National Endowment for the Arts 
helps preserve our national cultural heritage.
  This year, the NEA awarded a grant to the City of San Diego 
Commission for Arts and Culture to support the Living Traditions 
Initiative. Living Traditions teaches a wide array of skills in music, 
dance, language arts, history, folklore, crafts and visual arts though 
classes, publications, recordings and the broadcast media.
  In 1999, the NEA funded a collaborative project of the Brooklyn, New 
York, Historical Society to increase public access to visual materials 
documenting Prospect Park, the location of the 1776 Battle of Long 
Island, the first major conflict between the Continental and British 
Armies in North America, following the signing of the Declaration of 
Independence. The project will increase a historic image database, 
produce a guide for the database and make it Internet accessible.
  In 1999, the NEA funded Documentary Arts, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, to 
support a series of films that explore the complexity of American life 
through the spoken word and community-based sounds of folk artists 
across the country.
  Preserving national and community culture is one way to encourage 
patriotism and a sense of community that can help combat the apathy 
that keeps people from actively involving themselves in the daily life 
of their community.
  The NEA can be a force to engage the imagination. The NEA funds arts 
education for children, such as these:
  The Magic Theater in San Francisco, promotes the Young California 
Writers Project, an educational program designed to support young 
playwrights.
  Class Act is a music education program in Orange County, California, 
elementary and middle schools supported by NEA.
  Stagebridge in Oakland, California, provides a literacy program for 
both children and adults.
  The National Book Foundation does literary outreach to link leading 
authors with underserved communities throughout the country. For 
example, American Voices brings established writers to American Indian 
reservations nationwide and conducts a summer writing camp for inner-
city teens and adults.
  The MoveSpeakSpin program in Santa Cruz, California uses dance 
education activities as a tool in teaching curriculum subjects in math 
and science, subjects which often are difficult for children to learn.
  Given the demands on our school budgets in California, many school 
districts in California were forced to cut funding for music and art 
programs from their schools' curriculums. NEA funding in the schools 
helps assure that our children will still have access to arts 
education.
  Additionally, students who participate in the arts do notably better 
on standardized testing. Research from the 1995-1997 College Entrance 
Examination Board shows that students who studied the arts scored an 
average of 83 points higher than non-art students on the SAT.
  Arts can also provide a constructive outlet for young people. A 
three-year research study of YouthARTS, funded by the NEA and the U.S. 
Department of Justice in 1999, demonstrated that arts programs help 
decrease youth delinquency. Several NEA-funded projects have 
demonstrated this:

  NEA awarded a grant to the Richmond Art Center in California to 
support expansion of the ``Art Reach'' program for at-risk youths in 
West Contra Costa County.
  Creative Links: Positive Alternatives for Youth funds residency 
projects across the nation in which young people work with artists 
after school and during the summer. Programs are supported through arts 
organizations, community centers, low-income housing projects, tribal 
communities and juvenile facilities.
  By encouraging at-risk teens to express themselves through art 
instead of antisocial behavior, the NEA can help deter delinquency.

  For much of American history, art has been considered to be a 
``luxury'' of the elite. Through traveling programs and other outreach 
programs, the NEA has made art accessible for Americans in all corners 
of the nation and to all economic strata. Here are some examples in 
California:
  The Rural Journeys Project, run partially by Independent Eye, Ltd. in 
Sebastopol provides residencies that offer performances from the 
repertoire and workshops to rural communities nationally.
  A grant to the Humboldt Arts Council in Humboldt supports a 
consortium of multi disciplinary arts workshops and activities to 
rural, low-income populations.
  A Fresno Arts Council program compiles and assesses data on the 
state's artistic resources, including identification of traditional 
artists, and the creation of a database and report on artistic 
resources and needs.
  NEA has opened up the artistic world to the visually and audibly 
impaired.
  Deaf West Theater Company in North Hollywood supports a multi-
disciplinary production of ``Oliver,'' the musical, and production 
workshops in schools that serve deaf and disadvantaged youth.
  ARTREACH, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, creates a Cultural 
Access Guide for the Disabled for the

[[Page S7102]]

Greater Philadelphia region. The guide describes architecture and art 
for the physically disabled, blind, deaf, and hard of hearing 
populations to cultural venues.
  Many private organizations which fund art base their grants on the 
profitability of an artist or on their organizations' goals. The NEA 
gives special attention to underrepresented groups. Here are two 
examples:
  The NEA-funded Women's Philharmonic supports women conductors and 
music directors in leading national orchestras.
  The San Francisco group, American Indian Contemporary Arts, with NEA 
funding, mounts thematic exhibitions of contemporary Native American 
artists' work.
  Art is a ``language'' which crosses lines of race, ethnicity, 
culture, age, education, geography, and disability. Many of the 
projects which the NEA funds promote an understanding of our nation's 
diverse heritage:
  The Hmong Cultural Arts, Crafts, Teaching & Museum project in 
California provides instruction in Hmong Pa Dao embroidery and 
instruction in the ancient musical instruments of Kheng and Xee Xo.
  The Lake Tahoe Arts Project produces the Ballet Folclorico do Brasil
  The American Musical Theater of San Jose produces ``Musicals in the 
Neighborhood,'' multi-lingual musical performances that focuses on 
universal themes.
  Supporting arts representing different cultures is especially 
important to my state, the state with the most diverse population in 
the nation. Currently, California has 12 percent of the total 
population in the United States, 33 percent of the Hispanic population, 
37 percent of the Asian/Pacific Islanders population, 7 percent of the 
African-American population, and 13 percent of the American Indian 
population. California is the true melting pot. By funding arts which 
express many cultures, the NEA helps to foster cultural understanding 
among these many groups.
  The NEA provides Americans with valuable cultural programs, with an 
impact far beyond art. Through its work, the NEA has made great 
contributions to preserving American culture, educating American 
citizens, and assuring equal access to the arts and arts funding. To 
continue reaping these benefits, we must continue to support the NEA.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with final passage of the Fiscal Year 2001 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, I wish to take a 
moment to thank all Senators for their time and effort in helping to 
make this important measure a better product. As I have frequently 
noted, crafting the Interior bill is not an easy charge. Weighing the 
thousands of Member requests that come in to the Interior subcommittee 
against the limited resources made available to us is an arduous task, 
indeed.
  Yet, this year, as in past years, that job has been handled with 
great skill by the subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton. My friend 
from Washington is, I can say unequivocally, the best subcommittee 
chairman I have ever had the pleasure of working with. His dedication 
to duty, his graciousness under fire, and his commitment to working 
with me in a bipartisan manner are simply unparalleled. Moreover, the 
fact that this legislation will be adopted by the Senate by an 
overwhelming vote is testament, I believe, to the incredible job done 
by the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Let me also extend my appreciation to all subcommittee staff, in 
particular, Bruce Evans, who serves Senator Gorton in an efficient and 
capable manner. And, on the minority side, I wish to offer a special 
thanks to Peter Kiefhaber. Although this young man has been on my staff 
for more than eight years, this is his first year working for the 
Appropriations Committee. In the span of less than 6 months, he has 
worked hard, distinguishing himself not only to me, but obviously to 
other Members of the Senate, who have told me personally of his good 
work.
  Finally, let me again thank all Senators and say that I look forward 
to working with the subcommittee chairman as we proceed to conference 
with the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  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 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Feingold
     Wellstone
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The bill (H.R. 4578), as amended, was passed.
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair 
appoints Mr. Gorton, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Feinstein conferees 
on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at the closing of this bill, this is one 
more opportunity for me to thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, for his 
guidance, cooperation, and many courtesies in moving this bill through 
to final passage. He has been very complimentary of me. I can simply 
say that much or most of what I have learned about managing a bill I 
have learned from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and I 
hope he regards me as an apt pupil.
  I also thank his staff for all of their hard work. The minority 
clerk, Peter Kiefhaber, who is new to this job, has been a tremendous 
asset to the subcommittee and has been a forceful advocate for Members 
on his side of the aisle. Peter has been ably assisted by Carole 
Geagley of the minority staff, and by Scott Dalzell, who has been with 
us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  My own subcommittee staff has also had the benefit of an agency 
detailee--Sheila Sweeney from the Forest Service. Sheila has kept her 
good humor even while struggling to track the thousands of Member 
requests that the subcommittee receives from Members of this body. We 
have enjoyed having her with us. She has been extremely productive.
  The subcommittee professional staff on my side has done yeoman work: 
Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Joe

[[Page S7103]]

Norrell, and Christine Drager, who is in her first year with the 
subcommittee. All have contributed to making the passage of this bill a 
relatively smooth process, something I think speaks well of their 
dedication, professionalism, and knowledge of the programs and issues 
in this bill.
  Finally, of course, there is my chief subcommittee aide, Bruce Evans, 
who has guided this bill in each of the years that I have worked on it. 
I could not possibly have any better staff. I am certain that no Member 
of the Senate has better, more dedicated, or more effective staff in 
seeking passage of a particular bill.

  I also thank Kari Vander Stoep of my own personal staff for her 
outstanding work on the issues in this bill that are of particular 
importance to the people of the State of Washington.
  As many hours as we put in here on the floor, each of these 
individuals has spent that multiplied by 10 in late nights and early 
mornings, in literally months of putting the bill together. They are 
likely to do exactly the same as we go through to the conference 
committee and final adoption of the bill.
  I express my gratitude for their good work and the appreciation, I am 
sure, of Senator Byrd and of the Senate as a whole.

                          ____________________