Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)

[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

[[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,

[[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.

____________________