[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9900-S9917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 4578, Conference Report for FY 2001,
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill Language
Additional $1,762,000 for assessment of the mineral
potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010
of Public Law 96-487.
Earmark of $2,000,000 provided to local governments in
southern California for planning associated with the Natural
Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program.
Earmark of $1,607,000 for security enhancements in
Washington, D.C.
Earmark of $1,595,000 for the acquisition of interests in
Ferry Farm, George Washington's Boyhood Home and for
management of the home.
An additional $5,000,000 for Save America's Treasures for
various locale-specific projects.
Earmark of $650,000 for Lake Champlain National Historic
Landmarks.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Kendall County Courthouse.
Earmark of $365,000 for the U.S. Grant Boyhood Home
National Historic Landmark which should be derived from the
Historic Preservation Fund.
Earmark of $1,000,000 of the total of the grants made
available to the State of Maryland under Title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 if the
amount is set aside in an acid mine drainage abatement and
treatment fund established under a State law.
Earmark of $300,000 shall be for a grant to Alaska Pacific
University for the development of an ANILCA training
curriculum.
Provision stating that none of the funds in this Act may be
used to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the
Kankakee River basin that is inconsistent with the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding
and siltation in that area.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall designate
Anchorage, Alaska, as a port of entry for the purpose of
section 9(f)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Harvey
R. Redmond of Girdwood, Alaska, at no cost, all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to United States
Survey No. 12192, Alaska, consisting of 49.96 acres located
in the vicinity of T. 9N., R., 3E., Seward Meridian, Alaska.
Provision which requires a land exchange regarding the
Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish refuge.
Provision which authorizes a land exchange in Washington
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Othello Housing
Authority.
Provision which authorizes the establishment of the First
Ladies National Historic Site in Canton, Ohio.
Provision which authorizes the Palace of Governors in New
Mexico.
Provision which authorizes the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Heritage Preservation Commission.
Provision which redesignates the Cuyahoga Valley National
Recreation Area as a National Park.
Provision which authorizes the Wheeling National Heritage
Area in West Virginia.
Earmark of $500,000 to be available for law enforcement
purposes on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests.
Earmark of $990,000 for the purpose of implementing the
Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which shall be available to
the Secretary for the management of the Valles Caldera
National Preserve, New Mexico.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to be allocated to the Alaska Region,
in addition to its normal allocation for the purposes of
preparing additional timber for sale, to establish a 3-year
timber supply and such funds may be transferred to other
appropriations accounts as necessary to maximize
accomplishment.
Earmark of $700,000 shall be provided to the State of
Alaska for monitoring activities at Forest Service log
transfer facilities, in the form of an advance, direct lump
sum payment.
Earmark of $5,000,000 is appropriated and shall be
deposited into the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund
without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation. The
Secretary of Agriculture shall distribute these funds to the
City of Craig in fiscal year 2001.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to
[[Page S9901]]
the Forest Service in the National Forest System' and
`Capital Improvement and Maintenance' accounts and planned to
be allocated to activities under the `Jobs in the Woods'
program for projects on National Forest land in the State of
Washington may be granted directly to the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment
of planned projects.
Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest
Service shall be available for payments to counties within
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
Language stating that the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to enter into grants, contracts, and cooperative
agreements as appropriate with the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation, as well as with public and other private
agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals, to
provide for the development, administration, maintenance, or
restoration of land, facilities, or Forest Service programs,
at the Grey Towers National Historic Landmark.
Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest
Service shall be available, as determined by the Secretary,
for payments to Del Norte County, California.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to be designated by the Indian Health
Service as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health
Corporation (YKHC) to start a priority project for the
acquisition of land, planning, design and construction of 79
staff quarters at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a negotiated
project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health
Service.
Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, for fiscal year 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior are authorized to limit competition for
watershed restoration project contracts as part of the `Jobs
in the Woods' component of the President's Forest Plan for
the Pacific Northwest or the Jobs in the Woods Program
established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals
and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the
States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska
that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on
Federal lands.
Provision which continues a provision regulating the export
of Western Red Cedar from National forest System Lands in
Alaska.
Provision which continues to limit mining and prospecting
on the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri.
Provision limiting competition for fire and fuel treatment
and watershed restoration contracts in California.
Provision that amends the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area Act to expedite the acquisition of critical lands
within the NSA dealing with land appraisal assumptions
utilized by the Forest Service to acquire land within the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
Provision that adds the ``Boise Laboratory Replacement Act
of 2000'' that permits the sale of the Forest Service Boise,
ID, laboratory site, occupied by the Rocky Mountain Research
Station, and the use of the proceeds to purchase interests in
a multi-agency facility at the University of Idaho.
Conference Report Language
Bureau of Land Management
Earmark of $500,000 for Montana State University weed
program.
Earmark of $750,000 for Idaho weed control.
Earmark of $900,000 for Yukon River salmon.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Missouri River activities
associated with the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.
Earmark of $500,000 for the Missouri River undaunted
stewardship program.
Earmark of $700,000 for the development of a mining claim
information system in Alaska.
Earmark of $500,000 for a coalbed methane EIS in Montana.
Earmark of $650,000 for the Montana cadastral project.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Utah geographic reference
project.
Earmark of $2,400,000 for Alaska conveyance.
Earmark of $500,000 to prepare an EIS for future coal bed
methane and conventional oil and gas development in the
Montana portion of the Power River Basin.
Earmark of $500,000 for the Undaunted Stewardship program,
which will allow for local input and participation in grants
to protect historic sites along the Lewis and Clark Trail.
This program is to be cooperatively administered by the
Bureau and Montana State University.
Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the Waste
Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) at New
Mexico State University in addressing the problem of
abandoned mine sites in the western United States.
Earmark of $482,000 for an Alaska rural fire suppression
program (Wildland fire management).
Earmark of $482,000 for a rural Alaska fire suppression
program. (Wildland fire suppression).
Earmark of $8,800,000 is to be made available to the
Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) of Northern Arizona
University, through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau
of Land Management, to support new and existing ecologically-
based forest restoration activities in ponderosa pine
forests.
Earmark of $3,760,000 for construction at the Coldfoot
Visitor Center.
Earmark of $400,000 for construction at the Fort Benton
Visitor Center.
Earmark of $200,000 for construction at the California
Train Interpretive Center.
Earmark of $500,000 for construction at the Blackwell
Island Facility.
Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the town
of Escalante and Garfield County, UT to ensure that the
construction of the science center is consistent with the
Escalante Center master plan.
Earmark of $5,000,000 for land acquisition in El Dorado
County, CA.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition at Organ
Mountains, New Mexico.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition for Upper Crab
Creek, Washington.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Earmark of $2,000 for Everglades for resource management.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for cold water fish in Montana and
Idaho.
Earmark of $270,000 for the California/Nevada desert
resource initiative.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Central Valley and Southern
California habitat conservation planning.
Earmark of $500,000 for bighorn sheep conservation in
Nevada.
Increases in the recovery program include $5,000,000 for
matching grants for Pacific salmon conservation and
restoration in Washington.
Earmark of $288,000 for wolf recovery in Idaho.
Earmark of $100,000 for wolf monitoring by the Nez Perce
tribe.
Earmark of $600,000 for eider research at the Alaska
SeaLife Center.
Earmark of $600,000 for Lahontan cutthroat trout
restoration.
Earmark of $500,000 for the black capped vireo in Texas.
Increase of $1,400,000 for Washington salmon enhancement.
Increase of $4,000 for bull trout recovery in Washington.
Increase of $500,000 for private lands conservation efforts
in Hawaii.
Increase of $50,000 for rehabilitation of the White River
in Indiana in response to a recent fish kill.
Increase of $252,000 in project planning for the Middle Rio
Grande Bosque program.
Increase of $350,000 for Long Live the Kings and Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group.
Increase of $575,000 to reduce sea bird by-catch in Alaska.
Increase of $360,000 for staffing and operations associated
with the new port of entry designation in Anchorage, Alaska.
Increase of $5,000,000 for the Washington Hatchery
Improvement Project.
Increase of $184,000 for marking of hatchery salmon in
Washington.
Earmark of $11,051,000 for the Alaska subsistence program.
Earmark of $750,000 for the Klamath River flow study.
Earmark of $500,000 for Trinity River restoration.
Earmark of $200,000 for Yukon River fisheries management
studies.
Earmark of $100,000 for Yukon River Salmon Treaty education
efforts.
Increase of $2,000,000 for Pingree Forest non-development
easements in Maine to be handled through the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation.
The increase provided in consultation for cold water fish
in Montana and Idaho are for preparation and implementation
of plans, programs, or agreements identified by the States of
Idaho and Montana that will address habitat for freshwater
aquatic species on non-Federal lands.
Earmark of $800,000 in new joint ventures funding for the
Atlantic Coast.
Earmark of $750,000 in new joint ventures funding for Lower
Mississippi.
Earmark of $650,000 in new joint ventures funding for Upper
Mississippi.
Earmark of $1,400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Prairie Pothole.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Gulf
Coast.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Playa
Lakes.
Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Rainwater Basin.
Earmark of $1,000,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Intermountain West.
Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Central Valley.
Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Pacific Coast.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for San
Francisco Bay.
Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Sonoran.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for
Arctic Goose.
Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for Black
Duck.
Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for Sea
Duck.
Earmark of $593,000 for Alaska Maritime NWR, AK
(Headquarters/Visitor Center).
Earmark of $500,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Water
management facilities).
Earmark of $3,600,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Education
Center).
Earmark of $350,000 for Canaan Valley NWR, WV (Heavy
equipment replacement).
Earmark of $500,000 for Clarks River NWR, KY (Garage and
visitor access).
Earmark of $250,000 for Great Dismal Swamp NWR, VA
(Planning and public use).
Earmark of $800,000 for John Heinz NWR, PA (Administrative
wing).
Earmark of $700,000 for Kealia Pond NWR, HI (Water control
structures).
[[Page S9902]]
Earmark of $180,000 for Kodiak NWR, AK (Visitor Center/
planning).
Earmark of $130,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (ADA
accessibility).
Earmark of $600,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (Non-motorized
trail).
Additional $5,000,000 for National Conservation Training
Center, WV (Fourth Dormitory).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Noxubee NWR, MS (Visitor Center).
Earmark of $300,000 for Pittsford NFH, VT (Planning and
design/hatchery rehabilitation).
Earmark of $115,000 for Seatuck & Sayville NWRs, NY
(Visitor facilities).
Earmark of $1,512,000 for Silvio O. Conte NWR, VT
(Education Center).
Earmark of $1,100,000 for White River NWR, AR (Visitor
Center construction).
Earmark of $350,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV
(Holding and propagation).
Earmark of $20,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV
(Office renovations).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition at Back Bay NWR
(VA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Big Muddy
NWR (MO).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Bon Secour
NWR (AL).
Earmark of $1,750,000 for land acquisition for Centennial
Valley NWR (MT).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Clarks River
NWR (KY).
Earmark of $2,100,000 for land acquisition for Dakota
Tallgrass Prairie Project (SD).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Edwin B.
Forsythe NWR (NJ).
Earmark of $1,150,000 for land acquisition for Grand Bay
NWR (AL).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Lake Umbagog
NWR (NH).
Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Minnesota
Valley NWR (MN).
Earmark of $600,000 for land acquisition for Neal Smith NWR
(IA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Northern
Tallgrass NWR (MN).
Earmark of $800,000 for land acquisition for Patoka River
NRW (IN).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for land acquisition for Prime Hook
NWR (DE).
Earmark of $750,000 for land acquisition for Silvo O. Conte
NWR (CT/MA/NH/VT).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Stewart B.
McKinney NWR (CT).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Waccamaw NWR
(SC).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Walkill
River (NJ).
National Park Service
Earmark of $975,000 for the 9 National Trails.
Increase of $2,300,000 for Harpers Ferry Design Center.
Earmark of $350,000 to repair the lighthouse at Fire Island
NS.
Earmark of $75,000 to repair the Ocean Beach Pavilion at
Fire Island, NS.
Earmark of $309,000 for repairs of the Bachlott House.
Earmark of $100,000 for the Alberty House which are both
located at Cumberland Island NS.
Earmark of $500,000 for maintenance projects at the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways Park.
Earmark of $200,000 for a wilderness study at Apostle
Islands NL, WI.
Language that directs the National Park Service make
sufficient funds available to assure that signs marking the
Lewis and Clark route in the State of North Dakota are
adequate to meet National Park Service standards.
Language that directs that, within the amounts provided for
operation of the National Park System, the Service shall
provide the necessary funds, not to exceed $350,000, for the
Federal share of the cooperative effort to provide emergency
medical services in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
Language stating that consideration should be given to
groups involved in hiking and biking trails in southeastern
Michigan and the Service is encouraged to work cooperatively
with groups in this area.
Increase of $100,000 for Gettysburg NMP technical
assistance.
Increase of $250,000 for the National Center for
Preservation Technology.
Language that directs that implementation funds for the
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area are contingent
upon National Park Service approval of the management and
interpretive plans that are currently being developed.
Earmark of $742,000 for Alaska Native Cultural Center.
Earmark of $100,000 for Aleutian World War II National
Historic Area.
Earmark of $2,300,000 for Chesapeake Bay Gateways.
Earmark of $300,000 for Dayton Aviation Heritage
Commission.
Earmark of $2,250,000 for Four Corners Interpretive Center.
Earmark of $500,000 for Lamprey River.
Earmark of $500,000 for Mandan On-a-Slant Village.
Earmark of $500,000 for National First Ladies Library.
Additional $40,000 for Roosevelt Campobello International
Park Commission.
Earmark of $500,000 for Route 66 National Historic Highway.
Earmark of $495,000 for Sewall-Belmont House.
Earmark of $400,000 for Vancouver National Historic
Reserve.
Earmark of $594,000 for Wheeling National Heritage Area.
Earmark of $100,000 for Women's Progress Commission.
An additional $7,276,000 for various locale-specific
Historic Preservation projects.
Earmark of $500,000 for Antietam NB, MD (stabilize/restore
battlefield structures).
Earmark of $1,360,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (erosion
control).
Additional $600,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (rehab Outer
Island lighthouse).
Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL (Seminole Rest).
Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL.
Earmark of $4,000,000 for Corinth NB, MS (construct visitor
center).
Earmark of $779,000 for Cumberland Island NS, GA (St.
Mary's visitor center).
Additional $1,000,000 for Cuyahoga NRA, OH (stabilize
riverbank).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Dayton Aviation NHP, OH (east
exhibits).
Earmark of $114,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA, PA/NJ
(Depew site).
Earmark of $350,000 for Down East Heritage Center, ME.
Earmark of $500,000 for Dry Tortugas NP, FL (stabilize and
restore fort).
Earmark of $129,000 for Edison NHS, NJ (preserve historic
buildings and museum collections).
Earmark of $1,175,000 for Edison NHS, NJ.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Ft. Stanwix NM, NY (completes
rehabilitation).
Earmark of $386,000 for Ft. Washington Park, MD (repair
masonry wall).
Earmark of $300,000 for Gateway NRA, NY/NJ (preservation of
artifacts at Sandy Hook unit).
Earmark of $100,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway,
MD/VA (Belle Haven).
Earmark of $300,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway,
MD/VA (Mt. Vernon trail).
Earmark of $511,000 for Grand Portage NM, MN (heritage
center).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Hispanic Cultural Center, NM
(construct cultural center).
Earmark of $3,000,000 for Hot Springs NP, AR
(rehabilitation).
Earmark of $2,500,000 for John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley NHC, RI/MA.
Earmark of $795,000 Kenai Fjords NP, AK (completes
interagency visitor center design).
Earmark of $10,000,000 for Lincoln Library, IL.
Earmark of $290,000 for Lincoln Home NHS, IL (restore
historic structures).
Earmark of $487,000 for Longfellow NHS, MA (carriage barn).
Additional $945,000 for Manzanar NHS, CA (establish
interpretive center and headquarters).
Earmark of $2,543,000 for Missouri Recreation River
Research & Education Center, NE (Ponca State Park).
Earmark of $500,000 for Morristown NHP, NJ.
Earmark of $500,000 for Morris Thompson Visitor and
Cultural Center, AK (planning).
Earmark of $150,000 for Mt. Rainier NP, WA (exhibit
planning and film).
Additional $7,500,000 for National Constitution Center, PA
(Federal contribution).
Earmark of $6,000,000 for National Underground RR Freedom
Center, OH.
Earmark of $338,000 for New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail,
NJ (exhibits, signage).
Earmark of $800,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair
retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
Earmark of $445,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair
retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
Earmark of $10,000,000 for Palace of the Governors, NM
(build museum).
Earmark of $203,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX
(completes visitor center).
Earmark of $1,614,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX
(completes visitor center).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shiloh NMP, TN (erosion control).
Earmark of $3,000,000 for Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage,
PA (rehabilitation).
Earmark of $240,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
Earmark of $330,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
Earmark of $445,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections
building, fire suppression).
Earmark of $20,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections
building, fire suppression).
Earmark of $340,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island,
NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis
Island, NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
Earmark of $500,000 for Tuskegee Airmen NHS, AL
(stabilization planning).
Earmark of $365,000 for U.S. Grant Boyhood Home, OH
(rehabilitation).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Vancouver NHR, WA (exhibits,
rehabilitation).
Earmark of $739,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
Earmark of $550,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
Earmark of $788,000 for Washita Battlefield NHS, OK
(visitor center planning).
Earmark of $4,000,000 for Wheeling Heritage Area, WV
Earmark of $38,000 for Wilson's Creek NB, MO (complete
library).
Earmark of $200,000 for Wright Brothers NM, NC (planning
for visitor center restoration).
Earmark of $1,500,000 to complete the Federal investment at
Fort Stanwix NM in New York.
[[Page S9903]]
Language expecting the Service to provide the necessary
funds, within the amounts provided for Equipment Replacement,
to replace the landing craft at Cumberland Island NS and
replace the airplane at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
Earmark of $300,000 to initiate a Lincoln Highway Study to
initiate a study to define the cultural significance and
value to the Nation of the Congaree Creek site in Lexington
County, SC, as part of the Congaree National Swamp Monument,
and a study for a national heritage area in the Upper
Housatonic Valley in Northwest Connecticut.
Land Acquistion and Conservation Fund:
Earmark of $200,000 for Apostle Islands NL (WI).
Earmark of $1,200,000 for Appalachian NST (Ovoka Farm)
(VA).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Brandywine Battlefield (PA).
Earmark of $1,200,000 for Chickamauga/Chattanooga NMP (TN).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA (PA).
Earmark of $3,250,000 for Ebey's Landing NHR (WA).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Gulf Islands NS (Cat Island)
(MS).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Ice Age NST (Wilke Tract) (WI).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for Indiana Dunes NL (IN).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Mississippi National River RA
(Lower Phalen Creek) (MN).
Earmark of $2,700,000 for Petroglyph NM (NM).
Earmark of $2,200,000 for Saguaro NP (AZ).
Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shenandoah NHA (VA).
Earmark of $1,300,000 for Sitka NHP (Sheldon Jackson
College) (AK).
Earmark of $1,100,000 for Sleeping Bear Dunes NL (MI).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Stones River NB (TN).
Earmark of $1,500,000 for Wrangell-St. Elias NP & Pres.
(AK).
Earmark of $2,000,000 for the purchase of Cat Island, MS
(subject to authorization).
Earmark of $1,000,000 included for the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields National Historic District is contingent upon
the final approval by the Secretary of the Interior of the
Commission.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for the intended purchase of patented
mining claims in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park by the
National Park Service.
Earmark of $250,000 for the Hawaiian volcano program.
Earmark of $475,000 for Yukon Flats geology surveys.
Earmark of $1,200,000 for the Nevada gold study.
Earmark of $300,000 for Lake Mead/Mojave research.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Lake Champlain toxic study.
Earmark of $450,000 for Hawaiian water monitoring.
Earmark of $300,000 for the Southern Maryland aquifer
study.
Earmark of $180,000 for a Yukon River chum salmon study.
Earmark of $750,000 for the continuation of the Mark Twain
National Forest mining study to be accomplished in
cooperation with the water resources division and the Forest
Service.
Earmark of $4,000,000 to create NBII `nodes' to work in
conjunction with private and public partners to provide
increased access to and organization of information to
address these and other challenges. These funds are to be
distributed as follows: $350,000 for Pacific Basin, Hawaii;
$1,000,000 for Southwest, Texas; $1,000,000 for Southern
Appalachian, Tennessee; $200,000 for Pacific Northwest,
Washington; $250,000 for Central Region, Ohio; $200,000 for
North American Avian Conservation, Maryland; $250,000 for
Network Standards and Technology, Colorado; $400,000 for
Fisheries Node, Virginia and Pennsylvania; $200,000 for
California/Southwest Ecosystems Node, California; and,
$150,000 for Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Node, Montana.
Language stating that funding is provided for light
distancing and ranging (LIDAR) technology to assist with
recovery of Chinook Salmon and Summer Chum Salmon under the
Endangered Species Act. These funds should be used in Mason
County, WA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Earmark of $500,000 for Alaska subsistence.
Earmark of $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for a distance learning,
telemedicine, fiber optic pilot program in Montana.
Earmark of $146,000 for Alaska legal services.
Earmark of $200,000 for forest inventory for the Uintah and
Ouray tribes.
Earmark of $300,000 for a tribal guiding program in Alaska.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for the distance learning project on
the Crow, Fort Peck, and Northern Cheyenne reservations.
Increase of $1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church
repairs, which completes this program as authorized.
Increase of $50,000 for Walker River (Weber Dam).
Increase of $200,000 for Pyramid Lake.
Increase of $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Fishing
Settlement.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Earmark of $250,000 to the University of Washington
silviculture effort at the Olympic Natural Resource Center.
The managers have also agreed with Senate direction
concerning funding levels for the wood utilization laboratory
in Sitka, AK, and for operations of the Forest Research
Laboratories located in Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown,
WV, and funds for the CROP study on the Colville National
Forest, WA.
Language which directs the Forest Service to provide total
operational funding of $750,000 to the Rapid City, SD, lab.
Language which directs the Forest Service to provide
$502,000 in appropriated funds for the Wind River canopy
crane, WA. This funding includes proposed funding for the New
York City watershed and the Senate proposed funding for Utah
technical education and State of Washington stewardship
activities.
An additional $750,000 for an update of the cooperative
study on the New York-New Jersey highlands area.
Language directing $1,400,000 to the Ossippee Mountain
conservation, easement NH, and also to direct no less than
$2,000,000 to the Great Mountain, CT, easement, and no less
than $2,000,000 for the West Branch, ME, project.
Language stating the importance of forest protection in
South Carolina and encourage the Forest Service to work with
the appropriate State agencies to ensure continuation of
these much needed protections.
Increase of $450,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Study.
Earmark of $500,000 for cooperative activities in Forest
Park in St. Louis, MO.
Earmark of $250,000 in a direct lump sum payment for the
United Fisherman of Alaska to implement an educational
program to deal with subsistence management and other
fisheries issues.
Earmark of $5,000,000 to assist a land transfer for Kake,
AK; these funds are contingent upon an authorization bill
being enacted.
Earmark of $2,000,000 to cost-share kiln-drying facilities
in southeast and south-central Alaska.
Language stating that the funds provided for reforestation
on abandoned mine lands in Kentucky are to be matched with
funds provided in this bill to the Department of Energy for
carbon sequestration research, as well as other non-federal
funds.
Earmark of $900,000 for the University of Washington and
Washington State University extension forestry effort.
Earmark of $1,878,000 for Columbia River Gorge economic
development in the States of Washington and Oregon.
Earmark of $300,000 for the CROP project on the Colville
NF, WA.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for acid mine clean-up on the Wayne
NF, OH.
Earmark of $360,000 for the Rubio Canyon waterline analysis
on the Angeles NF, CA.
Increase of $1,500,000 increase for aquatic restoration in
Washington and Oregon.
Increase of $1,250,000 increase for Lake Tahoe watershed
protection.
Increase of $300,000 for invasive weed programs on the
Okanogan NF and other eastern Washington national forests
with no more than five percent of these funds to be assessed
as indirect costs.
Earmark of $200,000 for the Batten Kill River, VT, project.
Earmark of $700,000 for operations of the Continental
Divide trail.
Earmark of $100,000 for the Monongahela Institute effort at
Seneca Rocks, WV.
Earmark of $120,000 for the Monongahela NF, Cheat Mountain
assessment, WV.
Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative recreational site
planning on the Wayne NF, OH.
Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative efforts regarding
radios for use at Tuckerman's Ravine on the White Mountain
NF, NH.
Earmark of $68,000 for the Talimena scenic byway.
Language which directs the Forest Service to conduct a
feasibility study on constructing a recreational lake on the
Bienville NF in Smith County, MS.
Earmark of $790,000 for forestry treatments on the Apache-
Sitgreaves NF, AZ.
Earmark of $250,000 for a Pacific Crest trail lands team.
Earmark of $500,000 for special needs on the Pisgah and
Nantahala NFs.
Additional $2,000,000 for the Quincy Library Group project,
CA.
Additional $5,000,000 for Tongass NF, AK, timber pipeline.
Earmark of $500,000 in the minerals and geology management
activity to support necessary administrative duties related
to the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
Earmark of $600,000 is provided for cooperative research
and technology development between Federal fire research and
fire management agencies and the University of Montana
National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis.
Earmark $263,000 for Apache-Sitgreaves NF, AZ, urban
interface.
Earmark of $6,947,000 for windstorm damage in Minnesota.
Earmark of $1,500,000 for the Lake Tahoe basin.
Earmark of $2,400,000 for work on the Giant Sequoia
National Monument and Sequoia National Forests.
Earmark of $7,500,000 is a direct lump sum payment to the
Kenai Peninsula Borough to complete the activities outlined
in the spruce bark beetle task force action plan.
[[Page S9904]]
Ten percent of these funds shall be made available to the
Cook Inlet Tribal Council for reforestation on Native
inholdings and Federal lands identified by the task force.
Language emphasizing the need for a cost-share for the Grey
Towers, PA, funding.
Language encouraging the Forest Service to work with Tulare
County, CA, on plans for recreational facilities.
Earmark of $2,000,000 for the Forest Service to develop a
campground in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley in the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, WA.
Earmark of $2,000,000 to purchase non-development scenic
easements in Pingree Forest, ME.
Earmark for Lake Tahoe, NV of $2,000,000 for cooperative
erosion grants in State and private forestry, $1,250,000 for
the NFS vegetation and watershed activity to enhance
restoration of sensitive watersheds, $1,500,000 in capital
improvement and maintenance to help fix the ailing road
system, and $1,500,000 in wildfire management funding to
enhance forest health by reducing hazardous fuel.
Earmark of $5,500,000 for management of national forest
system lands for subsistence uses in Alaska as proposed by
the Senate.
-The Forest Service is encouraged to give priority to
projects for the Alaska jobs-in-the-woods program that
enhance the southeast Alaska economy, such as the Southeast
Alaska Intertie.
Increase of $2,000,000 is provided for a demonstration of
solid oxide technology in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
Earmark of $278,000 for the Golden, CO, field office.
Indian Health Service
Earmark of $225,000 for the Shoalwater Bay infant mortality
prevention program.
Increases for the Alaska immunization program include
$70,000 for pay costs and $2,000 for additional
immunizations.
Within the funding provided for contract health services,
the Indian Health Service should allocate an increase to the
Ketchikan Indian Corporation's (KIC) recurring budget for
hospital-related services for patients of KIC and the
Organized Village of Saxman (OVS) to help implement the
agreement reached by the Indian Health Service, KIC, OVS and
the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation on September
12, 2000. The additional funding will enable KIC to purchase
additional related services at the local Ketchikan General
Hospital.
Earmark of $1,000,000 for the Northwest Portland area AMEX
program.
Earmark of $4,500,000 is provided for construction of the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's facility at Hilo,
Hawaii.
title v--emergency/supplemental provisions
Department of Interior
$1,500,000 for the preparation and implementation of plans,
programs, or agreements identified by the State of Idaho that
will address habitat for freshwater aquatic species on non-
Federal lands in the State.
$1,000,000 to be made available to the State of Idaho to
fund habitat enhancement, maintenance, or restoration
projects consistent with such plans, programs, or agreements.
$5,000,000 for the conservation and restoration of Atlantic
salmon in the Gulf of Maine, with funds provided to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Atlantic Salmon
Commission and the National Academy of Sciences for specified
activities.
$8,500,000 to various specific locales to repair or replace
buildings, equipment, roads, bridges, and water control
structures damaged by natural disasters; funds are to be used
for repairs to Service property in the states of Maryland,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Washington.
$1,2000,000 for repair of the portions of the Yakima
Nation's Signal Peak Road.
An additional $1,800,000 for repairs in Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticutt, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland-Delaware-
Washington, D.C., Massachusetts-Rhode Island, Nevada, New
Hampshire-Vermont, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and
Virginia.
Department of Agriculture
$2,000,000 for an avalanche prevention program in the
Chugach National Forest, Kenai National Park, Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge and nearby public lands.
$7,249,000 to the National forest system for damage caused
by severe windstorms in the States of Minnesota and
Wisconsin.
Total earmarks in report...................................$372,064,000
Total supplemental/emergency earmarks........................28,249,000
Total combined earmarks.....................................400,313,000
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald, the
Senator from Illinois, for his valiant effort to prevent a contract to
be let without any competition. I do not understand why contracts that
entail expenditure of taxpayers' funds should not be let in a
competitive fashion so that the taxpayers can receive the maximum value
for their investments in their Government. I congratulate Senator
Fitzgerald for his valiant effort.
This year's final agreement provides a much-needed infusion of
funding for conservation, wildlife management, and Native American
programs. However, once again, I express my objections to the amount of
excessive pork barrel spending and extraneous legislative riders
included in this final agreement.
The agreement exceeds its overall budget by $2.5 billion, increasing
spending by 25 percent, with funding levels that are close to $4
billion higher than the House bill and $3 billion more than the Senate
bill.
We are entering a remarkable phase of American political history. The
spigot is on, and it is on in a fashion I have not seen in the years I
have spent in the Congress.
The new conference agreement has taken pork barrel spending to higher
proportions by adding more than $120 million more in earmarks that
either were not included in the Senate or House bill or added funding
for unrequested or unauthorized projects. In addition to higher amounts
of pork barrel spending, appropriators conveniently designated billions
more in emergency spending, including nearly $30 million in ``emergency
funds'' for locale-specific earmarks.
As I said, I have a list that was printed in the Record. Several of
our favorites: $1.25 million for weed programs at Montana State
University and Idaho--weed programs that are specific to two
universities; $5.25 million for a new dormitory at the National
Constitution Training Center; $20,000 for office renovations at the
White Sulfur Springs National Fish Hatchery. Guess where. West
Virginia. We have several fish hatcheries in my State of Arizona. I
wonder if maybe we could get a little refurbishment for our offices, as
well as those in West Virginia.
There is $487,000 for a carriage barn in Longfellow National Historic
Site in Massachusetts--a carriage barn.
Here is one of my favorites. I think we should all be impressed by
the pressing need for this: $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders
Association. For the Reindeer Herders Association, $176,000 is
earmarked.
That also happens to be out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding.
Never mind that we have dilapidated housing, terrible schools,
nutrition programs that need to be funded in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, my friends, but we put in $176,000 for that vitally needed
Reindeer Herders Association. I am sure Santa Claus is very pleased
that these funds will be going to the Reindeer Herders Association.
You will find something very interesting, Mr. President, as I go
through the list of earmarks and as people read the Record. You will
see the names Alaska, West Virginia, Washington State, and Hawaii
appear with amazing frequency, which I am sure is pure coincidence.
So we have $1 million for a distance learning telemedicine, fiber-
optic pilot program in Montana.
Here is an important one. Here is a vital item that had to be
earmarked: $1.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in Alabama. I am
not familiar with the Vulcan Statue, but I am sure it needed to be
refurbished over any other statue in America that may need to be
refurbished.
Here is one that should interest taxpayers and entertain all of us:
$400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club in New York. Take heart, all
Southside sportsmen, help is on the way: $400,000 for your operations.
There is $5 million for the Southeast--guess where--Alaska Economic
Disaster Fund, which was not included in either the Senate or House
proposals, ordered to be used for Craig, AK, to assist with economic
development. Times are tough in Craig, my friends. They need $5 million
in Craig.
I urge those who are interested to find out what the population of
Craig, AK, might be. I think that might turn out to be a fair amount of
money per capita.
There is $500,000 for administrative duties at the Kensington Mine in
southeast Alaska--ta-da, Mr. President--for administrative duties at
the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
We have lots of mines in my State. I hope they will consider helping
them with their administrative duties in their mines, as well.
Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on.
So $2 million for the purchase of Cat Island in Mississippi; $5
million for a land transfer in Kake, AK; $4.6 million for the Wheeling
National Heritage Area in West Virginia, which has received earmarks in
previous Interior
[[Page S9905]]
appropriations without any authorization. I should point out that new
legislative language was tacked on to this report to finally authorize
this project, although it certainly never went through the normal
process of approval.
I hope the taxpayers will be able to see how we are spending their
dollars. It is remarkable.
I believe in the debate one of the candidates was saying: You ain't
seen nothing yet. Mr. President, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until
we get to the omnibus bill which very few of us will have ever seen or
read when we vote yes or no on it. We will have a remarkable document,
one I think historians in the centuries ahead will view with interest
and puzzlement.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
atlantic salmon conservation and restoration
Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for his invaluable help in
securing funding for vital, time-sensitive, on-the-ground Atlantic
salmon conservation and restoration programs in Maine on an emergency
basis. Due to your efforts, $5.0 million in emergency appropriations
were included in the Interior Appropriations conference report for this
purpose. It is critical that these funds be on the ground this year in
order to demonstrate a federal financial commitment to salmon in my
State, and that a listing under the Endangered Species Act is not
necessary to conserve and restore Maine's Atlantic salmon.
Mr. GORTON. My home state, too, has experienced the disruption that a
federal endangered species listing can cause. I therefore appreciate
the importance and urgency of the funds sought by the Senator from
Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. The emergency appropriation included in the Interior
Appropriations conference report will make a substantial contribution
to salmon conservation and restoration efforts in the State. The funds
will be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (or
``NFWF''), which has made a commitment to me to allocate the monies to
worthwhile projects as soon as possible. The conference report provides
$5.0 million to NFWF, of which $2.0 million will be made available to
the Atlantic Salmon Commission and $500,000 will be made available to
the National Academy of Sciences. The remaining $2.5 million will be
administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program that will fund on-
the-ground projects to further Atlantic salmon conservation or
restoration efforts in coordination with the State of Maine and the
Maine Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan.
The conference report contains language indicating that funds
administered by NFWF will be subject to cost sharing. Is it your
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this language means the $2.5 million
administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program must be matched, in
the aggregate, by at least $2.5 million in non-federal funds?
Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Maine is correct. I expect that the $2.5
million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5
million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
Ms. COLLINS. And is it also your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that
the $2.0 million made available to the Atlantic Salmon Commission and
the $500,000 made available to the National Academy of Sciences will
not be subject to any matching requirement?
Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.
Ms. COLLINS. I want to again thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In crafting this conference
report, he has accomplished a Herculean task with this usual grace and
skill. And the $5.0 million he has helped secure will promote a
vigorous and effective salmon conservation and restoration effort in my
State.
Mr. GORTON. As I have said before, I greatly admire the Senator from
Maine's tenacity and her unfailing devotion to the best interests of
her State.
lake tahoe land acquisition colloquy
Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request your help
interpreting the language that was inserted into the conference report
pertaining to the use of funds appropriated for the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive property at Lake Tahoe. That language states
that no funds may be used to acquire urban lots. To my knowledge,
``urban lots'' is a term that is not defined in this bill or any
related statute or regulation. As a result, I want to make sure that we
clarify what we intend by the term urban lot.
As you know, the plan to protect Lake Tahoe is predicated in large
part of the Lake Tahoe Preservation Act of 1981 (H.R. 7306), commonly
known as the Santini-Burton Act, and companion California and Nevada
bond acts. Together, these State and Federal acts provide for the
purchase and stewardship of environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. The legislative history of the Santini-Burton Act
indicated that approximately $150 million worth of land in Lake Tahoe
would be purchased (approximately $100 million has been expended to
date). The Santini-Burton Act generally identified lands eligible for
purchase, and was followed by the adoption of a comprehensive plan
identifying specific criteria for purchases. That plan was subject to
an Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying public comment
process, and this plan remains in effect to this day.
I am confident that, with the correct information in hand, Congress
will direct the Forest Service to go forward with the completion of the
program. In the meantime, however, the effort to protect Lake Tahoe is
likely to sustain significant damage if the language in the conference
report is mistakenly interpreted to reverse long standing policy
decisions. That is why I am asking for your concurrence to direct the
Forest Service to interpret the language in a manner consistent with
the existing program.
Specifically, I want to make it clear that the term ``urban lot''
does not include environmentally sensitive lands. The current program
designates a property's eligibility for acquisition according to its
environmental sensitivity because that is the purpose of the
acquisition program. Such designations reflect extensive analysis and
the support of the local community. This report language should not be
interpreted to change this methodology such that acquisition
eligibility is based on an unspecified and invariably random geographic
distinction. In all likelihood, any ill-conceived geographic standard
would exclude the most environmentally sensitive property that the
ongoing program is designed to protect.
I believe that the report language is consistent with the current
practice of federal land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe basin. Do you
share my understanding that the definition of ``urban lots'' includes
only those properties that are presently qualified for urban
development?
Mr. GORTON. That is my understanding.
Mr. REID. Then it makes sense for any prohibition on land acquisition
referred to in the report language to apply only if to properties that
satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) they are not adjacent to
current forest system lands, (2) they are within Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency's urban boundaries, (3) they are not adjacent to Lake
Tahoe, or to waters or streamzones tributary to Lake Tahoe, and (4)
they are presently eligible to take residential or commercial
development. This clarification integrates the intent of the new
conference report language to limit such acquisitions to essential
sensitive lands while retaining the basic purpose of the Lake Tahoe
land acquisition program.
Mr. GORTON. In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from
Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake
Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your
interpretation of the language in question.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Chairman's understanding and concurrence
on this very important issue.
regarding sec. 156 and accompanying report language
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, I included language
in this bill that directs the Department of Interior to finalize the
so-called 3809 regulations, which govern hardrock mining operations on
public lands, and to do so consistently with the findings and
recommendations of a study completed by the National Research Council
or NRC. The language is identical to
[[Page S9906]]
language enacted in last year's omnibus bill. I want to emphasize my
intent in offering this language, and request the Chairman's
understanding and concurrence. Briefly, my intent is to ensure that the
Department of Interior finalizes a rule that protects the environment
and that takes into account the direction of Congress and the findings
and recommendations of the NRC report.
Mr. GORTON. I am glad to assist my friend, the senior Senator from
Nevada. In clarifying Congress' intent in enacting these provisions. I
agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to
study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is
consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year Congress adopted this requirement
that Interior finalize 3809 rule changes only if they are ``not
inconsistent'' with the recommendations of the NRC report I already
described. Parsing this statutory language to the point of absurdity,
the Interior Solicitor quickly wrote and circulated a legal opinion
concluding that Congress intended by this action to require Interior's
consideration only of material in the report specifically labeled as
``recommendations''--amounting only to a few lines of the report--and
no other information in the report. And, he went on to conclude that
this law imposes no significant limitations on the agency's ability to
finalize its proposed 3809 rule. This year we have adopted the
consistency requirement again, just as it was written last year. I ask
the Chairman, did we enact the language again just to ratify the legal
conclusion that Interior could finalize 3809 rules essentially without
restrictions?
Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act
again this year just to ratify the actions of the Department of
Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original intent: That
Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any final 3809
regulations promulgated be consistent with that report.
Mr. REID. One last question that I have concerns a statement made by
some of our House colleagues during House consideration of the FY 2001
Interior appropriations bill in which they suggested an interpretation
of the ongoing rulemaking including broad discretion to deny mining
permits, by redefining the existing statutory definition of unnecessary
or undue degradation. Does the Chairman of the subcommittee who helped
develop this language agree that our House colleagues are suggesting an
interpretation that clearly goes beyond current law and that section
156 specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be
construed to expand existing authority.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in
this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory
authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House
colleagues would require additional statutory authority which Interior
does not have and is specifically denied by this bill.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chairman for his help in clarifying the
Committee's intent.
u.s. forest service national fire retardants
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee on an issue that affects the Forest Service
and forest fire fighting in the West.
Mr. GORTON. I would be glad to engage in such a discussion with my
friend, the distinguished Chairman of Forest and Public Lands
Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service has announced its
intention to move to gum thickened/sodium ferrocyanide aerially applied
fire retardants in the 2004 bid process. The Service is to be commended
for this initiative that seeks a more effective and environmentally
friendly means to address the wildfires with which we have become so
painfully accustomed in the West. Indeed, the Forest Service's own
research shows that gum thickened retardants are 25-40 percent more
effective than un-thickened retardants. The criteria called for in
2004, though, can be met today. Is it the Committee's view that the
U.S. Forest Service should be striving for a more environmentally
friendly product and should use such a product as soon as possible?
Mr. GORTON. I agree with that view. It should be the U.S. Forest
Service's priority to use the most effective, environmentally
protective aerially applied fire retardants.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the after-effects of wildfires
are devastating to the landscape. Mother Nature has a way of bringing
life back to the land when all appears lost. However, even Mother
Nature cannot erase for years the stains on the lands caused by some
aerially applied fire retardants. This is especially of concern where
historical and archeological resources, national parks, wilderness
areas and urban/wilderness areas are concerned. Would you agree that
U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option for local foresters to
use less staining fugitive retardants where, in their judgment, it is
warranted?
Mr. GORTON. I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should
preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize
the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Forest Service has historically
supported competition in the supply of fire retardants through the
inclusion of a viability clause in its bids. For the first time, the
upcoming 2001 bid process may be conducted by sealed bid. It is unclear
whether viability will be a consideration. This is a critical issue in
a fire season like the one we just experienced. Would you agree that
the U.S. Forest Service should support competition in the supply of
aerially applied fire retardants?
Mr. GORTON. I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high
performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to
the mission of the Service.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for this clarification.
great falls historic district, paterson, new jersey
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator
Gorton, about one aspect of the conference report.
Mr. Chairman, the conference report to the Interior Appropriations
bill for Fiscal Year 2001 does not include funding for construction
projects in the Great Falls Historic District, located in the City of
Paterson, New Jersey.
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Great Falls
Historic District was established in Section 510 of Public Law 104-33,
the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legislation, which I coauthored,
is designed to preserve the historic character of the City of Paterson,
New Jersey. Like Lowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holds a prominent
place in our nation's industrial past. Few people realize that Paterson
was the first planned industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton himself
chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory, and he
established the Society for Useful Manufacturers right in Paterson. The
work of its citizens and the wealth of its natural resources soon
caused Paterson to thrive, and it became a mecca for countless numbers
of immigrants, including my own family. The skills and spirit of these
immigrants made Paterson one of our nation's leading centers for
textile manufacturing, earning the nickname ``Silk City.''
Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislation authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to provide grants through the Historic Preservation Fund for
up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan for the development of
historic, architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources
within the Great Falls District. The Secretary may also provide
matching funds for implementation of projects identified in the plan.
The total federal authorization for the Great Falls Historic District
is $3.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, since the authorizing legislation establishing the
Great Falls Historic District specifically enables the City to receive
up to $250,000 in matching federal funds for preparation of a historic
preservation plan, the Secretary could provide these funds through the
funds provided in the conference report for the Historic Preservation
Fund.
[[Page S9907]]
Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. This bill includes appropriations
from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible
projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.
Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman that the Great Falls project is
eligible to receive Historic Preservation Funds, for preparation of its
plan.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Great Falls
Historic District would be eligible to receive up to $250,000 of these
funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, and that, once
these plans are completed, an additional $50,000 in matching funds is
available from the Historic Preservation Fund for technical assistance
and $3 million is available for restoration, preservation, and
interpretive activities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the Mayor of the
City of Paterson to the regional director of the National Park Service,
expressing the City's interest in moving forward with development of
the Great Falls development plan. I hope that this letter will confirm
to the Service and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, that the City is
fully prepared to provide the necessary match to develop the plan. I am
confident that the City will work closely with the Service on
development of a plan, and that, once it is completed, the City may
apply for the remaining authorized funds for completion of specific
projects.
Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this matter, and I
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be inserted in the
Record.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
City of Paterson,
Office of the Mayor,
Paterson, NJ, October 4, 2000.
Marie Rust,
Northeast Regional Director, National Park Service, 200
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Re: Public Law 104-333.
Dear Ms. Rust: This is to reaffirm our sincere interest in,
and need of, the funding of Public Law 104-333. Ever since
the authorization of the 3.3 million dollars for the Great
Falls Redevelopment Act we have been anxiously awaiting the
appropriation. We are committed to provide the necessary
local match.
The preparation of the Development Plan required by the Act
is an essential first step in documenting the feasibility of
a National Park. After the Plan, our two primary activities
in the district remain to be the redevelopment of the former
ATP Site including the Gun Mill and the rehabilitation of the
raceway. Both projects are essential to the achievement of
the economic development objectives of the Urban History
Initiative. The initial Gun Mill stabilization has been
successfully completed. We are awaiting the execution of the
Programmatic Agreement so that we may continue with the
engineering and other site preparation and stabilization work
for the former ATP Site. The overall raceway and
prioritization has been completed. Final plans are ready for
the Upper Raceway section.
We continue to pursue other sources of funding including
TEA-21 Enhancement, the New Jersey Historic Trust, New Jersey
Green Acres, and others. If these are not successful I will
ask the City Council to bond any remaining local share. This
is to assure you that we will secure the local match for
whatever amount Congress appropriates.
Very truly yours,
Martin G. Barnes,
Mayor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been a long time supporter of
CARA--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The concept behind CARA
was a visionary one--to take revenues generated from the extraction of
offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest them permanently and
automatically in our nation's invaluable wildlife, coastal, and public
land resources.
The CARA proposal that was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan way
by the Senate Energy Committee offered an opportunity for this Congress
to make an historic contribution to conservation and to truly leave
behind a legacy that we could be proud of and from which our children
would benefit.
Instead, we are faced with a situation in which this overwhelmingly
popular bill will never be considered on the Senate floor.
The House passed its version of CARA back in May by an overwhelming
vote of 315 to 102; it was a vote that brought in supporters from
across the political spectrum and around the country. More recently, a
letter signed by 63 Senators was sent to the Senate leadership
requesting that CARA be brought to the floor.
Yet the Republican leadership has refused to let this bill move
forward.
I ask my colleagues, what does it take to get a vote around here? How
can we say that we are doing the people's business, if a bill that is
as broadly supported as CARA cannot even be voted upon?
We have now been presented with a package in the Interior
appropriations bill that purports to fulfill the goals of CARA. I am
tremendously disappointed to say that this package does very little to
accomplish the goals of CARA.
CARA would have provided nearly $45 billion to important conservation
programs over the next 15 years. The Interior proposal provides roughly
$6 billion and only makes those funds available for the next 6 years.
But far more disappointing than the discrepancy in funding levels is
the fact that the Interior proposal does little to guarantee that these
funds will actually be made available each year for specific
conservation purposes.
Instead, the Interior proposal will force important and beneficial
programs like Urban Parks and Recreation to battle against other
important programs like the Historic Preservation program for funding
each year.
What made CARA remarkable was the fact that it would have provided
the Urban Parks program, or state fish and wildlife agencies, or
endangered species recovery efforts, with a predictable and reliable
amount of funding.
This feature would have ensured that important conservation efforts
would NOT be subject to the uncertainties of the annual appropriations
cycle, but instead could be certain that funding would be available
over the long term. And as a result, these conservation programs could
have finally planned and implemented ambitious, long-term conservation
efforts. The Interior appropriations proposal fails to provide this
sort of certainty.
I will vote for the Interior appropriations bill. The bill funds many
important programs that I care about and in making a nod to CARA it
will provide some increased funding for things like the state's portion
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I am also pleased that the most egregious anti-environmental riders
that appeared in earlier versions of this bill have been removed.
However, I hope nobody will interpret my vote for this bill as a sign
of support for what I view as a hijacking of CARA. I remain deeply
disturbed that a bill that had the potential to do as much good as CARA
will never see the light of day.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret
that I rise today to oppose the Conference Report to the Interior
Appropriations bill.
I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference
report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands
for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds
down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including
several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. The bill
includes two projects that have been particularly important to me and
for which I requested funding--the Lamprey River & St. Gaudens. I
appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations Committee to provide that
funding.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding these and other good provisions, the
bill fails to deliver what we as elected officials have promised the
American people. I want to take this opportunity to explain, especially
to my fellow Granite Staters, why I am voting against the Interior
Appropriations Conference Report.
First, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not include full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund or for the many
important programs included in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
In failing to provide this funding, I believe that we have truly
squandered an opportunity that may never exist again. Even more
importantly, I believe we failed to live up to the promise we made
years ago to dedicate a percentage of the revenues from oil and gas
production on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation and
enhancement of fish, wildlife, lands and waters.
Congress came close to keeping that promise when the House passed by
an
[[Page S9908]]
overwhelming margin of three to one a landmark conservation bill--the
so-called Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee passed a companion bill in July. The
CARA bill reflects our collective commitment to investing in the
environment for ourselves and for future generations.
I am proud that I was able to play a part in bringing attention to
the bill in the Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held a hearing on the Senate
bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although that
Committee, which I chair, did not have primary jurisdiction over the
bill, I felt it was important to hold the hearing to help build support
for the legislation and to highlight some of the very important
programs that would be enhanced by the passage of the bill. These
programs included funding for the Endangered Species Act and Pittman-
Robertson Act, both of which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works. I said it then, and I want to reaffirm
it today. Now is the time for the Federal government to step up to the
plate and assist in the efforts to protect our natural resources--not
by grabbing up more Federal land, but by working in partnership with
States and private landowners and providing much-needed funding for
critically underfunded programs. The CARA bill would have done that.
Instead, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes a
mere shadow of the real CARA.
Instead of providing full permanent funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the Interior Conference Report appropriates only
$600 million for one year and only $90 million of that is allocated for
stateside funding. The CARA bill I cosponsored would have provided the
States with a guaranteed $450 million a year to conduct numerous
worthwhile conservation projects, including creating new parks and
building soccer fields. The limited appropriation provided by the
Conference Report, by contrast, with no guarantees for future years,
isn't CARA; it's business as usual.
The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors.
Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation
spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches,
shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans--94 percent believe
we should be spending more money on land and water conservation.
I agree with those Americans who believe that it's time to invest
some of the budget surplus in our environment. For years now, we have
been telling the tax payers that there isn't any money available for
conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the
burdens of saving our land and natural resources. Well, in my opinion,
those days are over. It's past time for the federal government to
contribute its fair share, and the Interior Conference Report falls far
short in that respect.
Second, I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Conference
Report provides no protections for private property rights. CARA did.
The real CARA bill provided an unprecedented level of protection for
the private land owner. For example, the Senate CARA bill that I
cosponsored expressly prohibited the federal government from using any
CARA funds to implement regulations on private property. In addition,
all Federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund would have been subject to significantly more
restrictions than under current law. Not one of those private property
rights protections is included in the Interior Appropriations
Conference Report.
Third, I cannot support the language in the Conference Report that
establishes a vague new Federal ``wildlife conservation program'' that
imposes new, but undefined, obligations on the States and gives broad
discretion to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to define those
obligations. The Interior Appropriations Conference Report directs the
Fish and Wildlife Service to create a new $300 million state grant
program subject only to the approval of the Committee on
Appropriations. That is inappropriate.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for
overseeing wildlife programs; it is our prerogative and responsibility
to review, discuss, and ultimately authorize any wildlife program. Yet,
this new program was inserted at the last minute, behind closed doors,
without any public debate or consultation with the Committee of
jurisdiction. For that reason, I must oppose its inclusion in this
Conference Report. The concept may be a good one, but this is not the
right process or the appropriate vehicle.
Finally, I must oppose the Conference Report because of the adverse
impact it will have on thousands of citizens of New Hampshire who
depend upon and enjoy the White Mountain National Forest.
When the Senate passed its Interior Appropriations bill in July, it
included an important provision excluding the White Mountain National
Forest from this Administration's broad policy of prohibiting the
construction of all new roads in previously undisturbed areas of
national forests, the so-called roadless policy. We excluded the White
Mountain National Forest from this ``one-size-fits-all'' roadless
policy, not because we want thousands of miles of new roads in the
White Mountains, but because these decisions should be made at the
local level through the forest planning process, by the people who live
near, enjoy, and use the National Forest.
I have deep concerns about the Administration's roadless policy
because I believe it is intended to limit public access and legitimate
public use of our national forests. But even more importantly, in the
context of the White Mountain National Forest, it would specifically
override an existing forest management plan that maintains a balance
between economic activity, recreation and environmental protection--a
forest management plan that was developed through a collaborative
process involving state and local government officials, local citizens,
and federal officials. I firmly believe that States and local citizens
should play a significant role in making the management decisions
relating to the forest lands in their communities, including the
decisions about roads.
It was for that reason that I strongly supported the language that
was included in the Senate bill that allowed the citizens of New
Hampshire to make those decisions through the forest planning process
for the White Mountain National Forest, rather than simply mandating a
blanket roadless policy from Washington, D.C. That important provision,
however, has now been dropped from the Conference Report. I believe
that Washington D.C.'s roadless policy will hurt New Hampshire. It will
have significant economic, social, and ecological impacts. And it will
undermine the cooperative dialogue that took place during the revision
of the forest plan. Therefore, I cannot support a Conference Report
that does not include language protecting the White Mountain National
Forest from unnecessary and inappropriate interference from
Washington's bureaucrats.
The Interior Appropriations bill passed by the Senate last July also
included a specific exemption for North Country residents from the user
fees that the National Forest Service charges for access to the White
Mountain National Forest. That exemption has now been deleted.
I have long been opposed to user fees in the White Mountain National
Forest because I believe it is fundamentally unfair to local residents.
In areas, like the North Country of New Hampshire, where the Federal
Government owns much of the land, communities lose a significant
portion of their property tax base which they need to fund schools and
other necessary social programs and infrastructure. Residents in these
communities then have to make up the shortfall. The user fee, on top of
the loss in local tax revenue, imposes an unfair burden for local
citizens. It is wrong for the Federal government to charge local
residents in the North Country a fee for enjoying the White Mountain
National Forest when they are already subsidizing the Forest.
As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this
Interior Conference Report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have
done and appreciate the support they have given to important New
Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I
oppose the Conference Report.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak
about two provisions of great concern to my
[[Page S9909]]
state of Minnesota. While this conference report clearly missed the
opportunity to make a historic, long term, commitment to our
environmental heritage, I rise in support of this legislation because
it does represent an important first step in many conservation
accounts, and includes vital funding to restore Minnesota's National
Forests.
First of all, I want to make clear that I am disappointed that the
full Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, was not included in this
Interior Appropriations bill. CARA, as reported out of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is landmark legislation that
would commit $3 billion annually for 15 years to conservation and
natural resource protection. CARA would provide $37.4 million of stable
funding annually to the conservation and protection of Minnesota's
natural resources.
However the compromise in this bill does not reflect the spirit or
intent of the full CARA bill. First of all this Conference report does
not guarantee multiple year funding for the states, which was the
entire premise of CARA. When it comes to protecting our coastlines (on
the North Shore in Minnesota) and open spaces (in Northern Minnesota),
expanding our urban parks (in the metro Twin Cities area), or investing
in wildlife conservation, the annual appropriation approach has proven
not to work in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. In
addition, the report does not include dedicated funding for wildlife
conservation programs, which puts Minnesota's wildlife conservation
needs in competition with other state conservation programs, and makes
it possible that Minnesota would receive no funds for wildlife
preservation from this legislation. While, overall I am encouraged that
this legislation more than doubles conservation funding from the $742
million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 billion in FY 2000, we
should not loose sight of the fact that this conference report is
clearly no substitute for a full funded CARA bill.
On a related matter, I am pleased the conference committee has
restored the balance of the Forest Service's request for Minnesota's
National Forests. During consideration of the Interior Appropriations
bill, Senators Gorton and Byrd agreed to my amendment to include $7.2
million in additional emergency funds for Minnesota's National Forests.
And today the Senate will take an important step that will restore the
balance of emergency funds requested earlier this year by the Superior,
Chippewa and Chequamegon National Forests' for blowdown recovery
efforts.
Furthermore, this legislation includes an important regular, FY 2001
appropriation for the Superior National Forest, that my colleague from
Minnesota and I were able to work on together. These monies would be
available to the Forest Service next year and are vital to continued
recovery efforts in northern Minnesota.
These national forests bore the brunt of a massive once-in-a-thousand
year wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern Minnesota on
July 4, 1999. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties,
including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests,
and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has
severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly
manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests.
The most troubling aspect of this storm for the people of northern
Minnesota is the continued extreme risk of a catastrophic fire
resulting from the tremendous amount of downed and dead timber. Funding
provided to the Forest Service through this legislation will be used
for immediate and future recovery efforts, and to reduce the threat of
a major wildland fire.
The storm has changed affected portions of the forests for years to
come and has created new risks and experiences for visitors and
residents. Since July 4th, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests
officials have been working with state, county, and local officials on
storm recovery activities and planning to meet future needs.
Immediately after the storm the Forest Service, in conjunction with
State, County and local governments began a search and rescue operation
that lasted for 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999. Fortunately not a
single life was lost in the storm, however there were 20 medical
evacuations from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW. The
most severe case was a broken neck. In addition, the forest Service
conducted a search of 2,200 camp sights in the BWCAW to ensure no one
was trapped. And finally USFS crews cleared approx. 200 miles of roads,
and reconstructed 6 miles of emergency roads.
Once the emergency search and rescue was completed, the U.S. Forest
Service turned their attention to reducing hazards that could
negatively affect visitors, residents and local businesses that depend
on the BWCAW and the National Forests. The Forest Service brought in
191 people including an administrative team and several crews from
across the country to return facilities to a safe condition so they
could be reopened and used during the rest of the year.
And now the Superior National Forest is proposing to reduce the risk
of fire escaping the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, by
using prescribed burning within the wilderness. The 1.1 million-acre
BWCAW, located in northeastern Minnesota adjacent to the Canadian
border, is one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the United
States.
The proposal is to reduce the increased risk of wildfire associated
with the July 4, 1999, storm. The proposed action is to treat
approximately 47,000 to 81,000 acres of the wilderness with prescribed
fire over a five to six year time period.
The goal of this project is to improve public safety by reducing the
potential for high intensity wildland fires to spread from the BWCAW
into areas of intermingled ownership, which include homes, cabins,
resorts and other improvements, or across the international border into
Canada. This will be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to
ecological and wilderness values, and protects fire personnel and BWCAW
visitor safety during implementation.
While the Forest Service has been engaged in this work for many
months, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going
to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the
forest to a more normal and healthy state. However this cannot happen
without adequate funding. This is a victory for all of Minnesota, and I
am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased that
the Senate approved the remainder of these badly needed funds today,
especially for the people of northern Minnesota, who cannot wait.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the conference
report for Interior appropriations before this body today makes a
significant investment in Wisconsin's only unit of the National Park
System, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Lakeshore recently
celebrated its 30th anniversary on September 26, 2000, and I rise today
to express my gratitude to the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for working with me
to ensure that some of the highest priority needs at the Lakeshore are
met.
I have been raising the need for these funds since 1998. On April 22
of that year, I introduced legislation, named for former Senator
Gaylord Nelson who was the sponsor of the federal legislation that
created the Lakeshore, to try to make sure that the Park Service has
the funds included in this bill today. This bill helps to fund a
wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the
Wilderness Act. Most of the Lakeshore is managed as wilderness, yet the
required study has not yet been completed so that Congress can evaluate
whether there is a need for a formal legal designation. This bill
retains amendment language that I offered during the Senate
consideration of Interior appropriations and provides $200,000 for that
purpose.
The bill also provides funds to the Park Service to protect the
history Raspberry and Outer Island lighthouses which are threatened by
erosion. The 21 islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have
six lighthouses, the greatest number of lighthouses on any property in
federal ownership anywhere in the country. They are all at least 100
years old, and many of them are still used as aids to navigation and
are in need of Federal help.
[[Page S9910]]
By providing funds in this bill to ensure the success of the
Lakeshore we contribute to another larger success--our efforts to clean
and protect our environment and provide places for people to rest and
refresh themselves. I have been very pleased in the willingness of the
bill's managers to support my efforts to draw attention to this park.
They have other, bigger parks that also have funding needs. But the
managers understood my appeal on behalf of the people of Wisconsin with
these funds. They know, as I do, that when the American people sit
among the hemlocks on Outer Island, walk along the shore, travel to
Devils Island, observe the waters of Lake Superior, they know
protection of the Apostles is worth a federal investment.
The investments in the Apostles are authorized investments, part of
the requirements that we gave the Park Service when we created the
Lakeshore. As delighted as I am that these funds have been included by
the managers, I remain concerned about the fact that this bill provides
funds and policy direction for unauthorized projects, authorizes new
projects and continues to contain a number of policy riders that affect
environmental protection. Because these riders remain, I will vote
against the bill.
I am concerned that this body is becoming habituated to the practice
of environmental legislation by rider. This leaves Members of this
body, like myself, who are very concerned about legislation which has
the potential to adversely effect the implementation of environmental
law, or change federal natural resource policy, with limited options.
We must, by either striking the riders, or trying to modify their
efforts, do the work of the authorizing committees on the floor of this
body. With limited floor time on spending bills, and with the pressure
to pass appropriations bills or risk shutting down or disrupting
important Government programs, we do not do the best by the environment
that we can and must do in our legislative efforts.
I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending
bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially
environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the
federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law.
For more than two decades, we have been a remarkable bipartisan
consensus on protecting the environment through effective environmental
legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the
American people to protect the quality of our public lands and
resources. That responsibility requires that the Senate express its
strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in
spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially
beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced
by the federal agencies that carry out Federal law.
Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72
counties. When I hold these meetings, the people of Wisconsin continue
to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending
bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being
made without the benefit of an up or down vote.
When this bill passed the Senate initially on July 18, 2000, I was
one of two Senators to vote against it because of legislative riders. I
know that the bill managers worked long and hard to keep a number of
the most controversial riders, many of which I was concerned about, off
of this bill and I commend them for that. However, I am also concerned
that there is a category of riders to which we have become habituated:
riders on Alaska red cedar, riders on mining regulations, riders on
grazing permits. There are also new authorizing provisions in this
bill, such as developing forensic laboratory service fees for Fish and
Wildlife investigations into wildlife mortality, and a new program to
develop a reduced fee program for developing a reduced fee program to
accommodate nonlocal travel through the National Park System. Why
aren't these matters being discussed in the authorizing committees?
These issues may have merit, but I think they should be handled by the
committees of jurisdiction.
We cannot continue to put the Appropriations Committee in the
position of having to decide which of these riders are more or less
important. These measures need to be referred to the authorizing
committees, and we need to restore the trust of the American people
that we are proceeding with the people's business in a fashion which
allows for open debate and actual deliberation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in strong
support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4578, the Interior
and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the joint
House-Senate conference committee, I appreciate the difficult task
before the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member to
balance the diverse priorities funded in this bill--from our public
lands, to major Indian programs and agencies, energy conservation and
research, and the Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done
a masterful job meeting important program needs in this final bill.
The pending conference report provides an unprecedented $18.9 billion
in new budget authority and $11.9 billion in new outlays to fund the
Department of Interior and related agencies. When outlays from prior-
year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into
account the Senate bill totals $18.9 billion in BA and $17.4 billion in
outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Senate bill is exactly at the revised
section 302(b) allocation for both BA and in outlays filed by the
Appropriations Committee earlier today.
I would particularly like to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd
for their commitment to Indian programs in this year's Interior and
related agencies appropriation bill. They have included increases of
$160 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs education construction, $214
million for the Indian Health Service, and nearly $102 million for the
operation of Indian programs.
I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for bringing
this important measure to the floor with significant resources totaling
$1.6 billion to address the aftermath of the devastating summer and
fall forest fires, including my initiative to undertake hazardous fuels
reduction activities within the urban/wildland interface to protect our
local communities--the so-called Happy Forests initiative.
This bill also includes an important, bipartisan compromise to
establish a new Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure
Program that will dedicate $12 billion over the next six years to
conservation programs. This is an unprecedented commitment to
conservation efforts by the Federal Government. I am pleased to support
this initiative in its final form.
I appreciate the consideration given by my colleagues to several
priority items for my constituents in New Mexico, which are included in
the final bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the final version of the fiscal year
2001 Interior and related agencies Appropriations bill, and I ask
unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 4578, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2001, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget authority..................... 18,883 59 18,942
Outlays.............................. 17,284 70 17,354
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... 18,883 59 18,942
Outlays.............................. 17,284 70 17,354
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... 14,769 59 14,828
Outlays.............................. 14,833 83 14,916
President's request:
Budget authority..................... 16,413 59 16,472
Outlays.............................. 15,967 70 16,037
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 14,723 59 14,782
Outlays.............................. 15,164 70 15,234
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 15,875 59 15,934
Outlays.............................. 15,591 70 15,661
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... ......... ......... .........
Outlays.............................. ......... ......... .........
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... 4,114 ......... 4,114
Outlays.............................. 2,451 -13 2,438
President's request \1\
Budget authority..................... 2,470 ......... 2,470
Outlays.............................. 1,317 ......... 1,317
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 4,160 ......... 4,160
Outlays.............................. 2,120 ......... 2,120
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 3,008 ......... 3,008
[[Page S9911]]
Outlays.............................. 1,693 ......... 1,693
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comparison between the conference report and the President's
request is skewed because the conference report includes $1.5 billion
in emergency firefighting funds that the President indicated he would
request, but for which OMB never submitted a formal request to the
Congress, so the amount is not reflected in the President's request.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am in line for time, but I would be
happy to yield to the Senator for 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I just need the 30 minutes that were reserved for me. I
would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have
many times in the last couple of months, to speak about an issue that
is so important for so many Members in the Senate, and our colleagues
on the House side, and to supporters everywhere, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act.
We will be voting on the Interior appropriations bill in just a few
moments. I plan, with all due respect to those who have worked on this
bill--and I acknowledge their hard work--to vote no because it fails to
embrace the principles outlined in the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act.
I express my respect for the members of the Appropriations Committee.
They have a very tough job. They are charged with a great
responsibility. While we have disagreed over this particular issue, we
have worked together as we have tried and continue to try to reach a
bipartisan compromise over this great battle for a legacy for our
environment.
In particular, I thank Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, our chairman,
and Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, our ranking member, who
have been very attentive to the calling and the requests of the CARA
supporters in this regard. While we have disagreed on this issue, it
has not been personal. My remarks today are intended strictly to be
constructive and hopefully to help us chart a course to navigate in the
future on this important issue.
I will read into and submit for the Record the excellent comments
from individuals and Governors and mayors reflected in newspapers
around our country, literally from the west coast to the east coast,
from the south to the north, from interior communities to coastal
communities, literally thousands and thousands of positive editorials
and articles written about what we are attempting to do. From the State
of Illinois, we have had some of our best editorials on this subject,
of which the Presiding Officer has been a supporter.
From the Seattle Post, May 18, a few months ago this year, talking
about CARA:
It is a bold approach to environmental conservation and
restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the
squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of
Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to
be it.
From the Providence Journal, RI, September 19:
Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that this
measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days of an
election-year session. Citizens should press Congress to get
it on to the desk of President, who would sign it.
While time is short, where there is a will there is a way, and the
people of Rhode Island surely believe that.
From the Los Angeles Times, September 18:
This measure should be plucked from the pack and made law.
Chicago Tribune, from the home State of the Presiding Officer:
As Congress churns through its last days before
adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be
left in the dust, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or
CARA.
The New York Times just last week:
Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two
of the most important conservation bills in many years. One
bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee
$45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental
purposes, including wilderness protection.
Again, from my own paper, the New Orleans Times Picayune, which a few
months back, actually, in its frustration in trying to communicate our
message, said:
Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why
Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of
this environmental money generated by offshore revenues and
maybe that is because their states aren't disappearing.
From the Tampa Tribune:
The Conservation Reinvestment Act is a necessary and
sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its
natural heritage. It deserves Senate support.
Finally, from the Detroit Free Press, one of our most supportive
editorials, in June of this year:
One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the
ability to focus on smaller projects than the Federal
Government normally would, including urban green spaces,
walkways, small slices of important habitat. For those with
visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of selective
preservation of natural spots in the path of development,
CARA is a dream come true--if the Senators controlling its
fate will set it free.
I don't think CARA is going to get set free in the vote that we are
going to have in just a few minutes, but that is the process. We will
continue our fight. We will continue to talk about this important
issue, and we will be organized and ready for next year.
In addition, there are still days left in this session where CARA
could be, or something more like it, set free so that we can begin and
can continue some of the very important environmental work going on in
the country.
Let me say, not all of that environmental work takes place in
Washington, D.C. Not all of that environmental work takes place among
Federal agencies, although they have a role. A lot of this work takes
place in our hometowns all across the Nation, with our Governors'
offices, with our mayors and our county commissions, on ball fields and
soccer fields, on cleanup days and Earth Days all over the Nation. That
is the hope that CARA would bring that will be left on the table today.
I will submit all of these for the Record in my closing remarks.
In addition, let me make the point that some people have claimed that
the CARA legislation was just helping coastal States. I will submit for
the Record a wonderful editorial today from a place right in the middle
of our Nation, the Kansas City Star, about the Conservation
Reinvestment Act, realizing that time is short, but I want to read what
they say from Kansas and Missouri:
This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent
bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the
one approved by Congress.
Let us try to unite and find the will to salvage what we can, and
perhaps there is a possible way to do that.
Let me read for the Record, as I begin closing, a letter to the
editor of all the ones that were received, and there were literally
hundreds written by many distinguished people from around our
country, the one we received that just stood out above all the others
was a wonderful letter written by Lady Bird Johnson and by the
distinguished leader, Laurance Rockefeller, who is the uncle to our
colleague from West Virginia whom we so admire and respect and for whom
we have such affection. Laurance Rockefeller is 98 years old. I will
read into the Record what Lady Bird and Laurence Rockefeller said about
the actions we should be taking now:
The 20th century can rightly be called America's
conservation century. From President Theodore Roosevelt
forward, Americans began to embrace their land rather than
just use it. This ethic of conservation has created,
protected and preserved tens of millions of acres of open
space in America, encompassing everything from national parks
to neighborhood soccer fields.
But conservation is not something that concludes just
because a century does. We are not done, nor will we ever be.
While protecting our natural resources is often a
[[Page S9912]]
quiet, steady exercise, sometimes moments of great
opportunity arise. We are at such a moment now.
They go on to write:
The U.S. Senate has before it legislation that would do
more to protect America's heritage than anything in a
generation. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is in the
true spirit of the early conservationists: It plans for the
future while solving the immediate; it provides for
recreation as well as preservation; it ensures significant
state and local input and control; and it has bipartisan
support. The House has passed the bill and the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee has approved it. With the
administration supporting the legislation, all that is needed
is Senate action in the remaining days of this Congress.
CARA's origins stretch back to 1958, when President
Eisenhower created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission to conduct a three-year inquiry into America's
growing outdoor needs. Its findings suggested a new approach:
Not only should the Federal Government step up its lagging
land acquisition program to round out our National Park
System, but it should also embark on a new venture to provide
matching funds that state and local governments could use to
meet a broader set of outdoor needs.
In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law a bill
creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which not only
affirmed these commitments but set American conservation on a
course it still follows.
The foresight embedded in LWCF--an emphasis on Federal/
state/local partnerships, long-term planning, permanent
acquisition and urban recreation--was strengthened later in
the 1960s by tapping money from offshore oil and gas leases
to fund LWCF projects. The wisdom of doing so was strikingly
simple: Utilize the exploitation of one public natural
resource in order to protect and conserve another. Congress
had made a promise and found a way to keep it. And for years,
the LWCF worked wonders. More than 37,000 projects have been
sparked by the initiative, helping states and localities
acquire 2.3 million acres of parkland and adding 3.4 million
acres of new Federal lands to our national bounty. The LWCF
has funded open space in literally every county in America,
and is responsible for everything from helping preserve Civil
War battlefields to purchasing land for Rocky Mountain
National Park to building the baseball field down the street
from your house.
After 15 years of generally faithful adherence to LWCF's
unique bargain, Presidential administrations and Congress
began to redirect large chunks of fund revenues from their
intended purposes to other budget items. Since 1980, more
than $11 billion has been diverted from these projects,
creating a staggering backlog of Federal, state and local
land protection needs.
They continue and write:
We urgently need to restore the promise. That's what CARA
will do. CARA represents the first good opportunity in 20
years to set our conservation path back on track. It not only
fully funds the LWCF, but also addresses critical needs in
wildlife management, urban parks, coastal protection--
Which is so important to my State and to many of our States,
particularly Mississippi, Alabama, and all along the east and west
coasts--
and historic preservation. Most important, it establishes a
dependable source of funding for these programs. The
prescience of those who created the fund was that
conservation especially could not be a haphazard thing;
population growth, the inexorable march of development and
simple wear and tear on resources require a permanent
commitment. CARA returns us to that premise, providing
approximately $3 billion a year and a firm precedent for
future funding.
CARA returns us to another important ideal: bipartisanship.
Sometimes that is in too short supply here in Washington.
Republican Don Young of Alaska and Democrat George Miller
of California did a masterful job of steering CARA through
the House, winning a 315-102 vote. In the Senate, Republican
Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New
Mexico brought the bill out of committee with support from
Senators of both parties. In these gridlocked times, CARA's
bipartisan treatment is a reminder that policy can sometimes
overcome politics.
They conclude by saying:
We hope the full Senate will heed that reminder and act on
CARA now.
We have worked as partners on conservation issues for almost four
decades. Our hope has always been that American leaders would act so
that their children--all children--would have something to look forward
to. By reviving the Land and Water Conservation Fund before Congress
goes home this year, it can provide just that.
Unfortunately, the bill before us does not do what this vision
outlined. It does do many good things, but it falls short of this
vision. In the last 10 minutes that I have, I want to finalize my
comments by making just a few more points and submit a letter for the
Record.
According to the Webster's Dictionary, ``legacy'' means something
handed down from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past, or to
bequeath.
For more than 3 years, many in this body, dozens of Members of the
House of Representatives, hundreds of mayors and Governors, thousands
of environmentalists and wildlife groups, and millions of Americans
have been calling for a true environmental legacy.
Those of my colleagues who will, in a few minutes, support the
Interior appropriations conference report will do so for many good
reasons. My great friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, spoke eloquently
yesterday about the money in this bill to fight the wild fires raging
across the western plains. That is a very good reason to support this
bill.
As the temperature gets ready to dip across America this winter,
there is great need for a home heating oil reserve, and that is in this
bill. That is a very good reason to support it.
In my State of Louisiana, the Cat Island Refuge, which is the oldest
cypress forest in North America--and it may be the only one left--gets
money in this bill. The New Orleans Jazz Commission and the Cane River
National Heritage Area, the oldest settlement in the Louisiana
Purchase, are reasons to support this bill.
However, if anyone here is looking for a true legacy, a long-term
commitment to our vanishing coastlines, our disappearing wildlife, and
our crumbling parks and historic treasures, you will not find that in
this bill.
The true legacy would have been the Conservation Reinvestment Act--a
bill which has bipartisan support by a vast majority of the Congress
and support from the President of the United States. However, today we
will be asked to vote on what really amounts to sort of a CARA
cardboard cutout--one that kind of looks like the real thing, but it is
really flimsy and hollow, one which fails to deliver the great promise
that we had at this opportunity for our children and our grandchildren.
For 3 years, a monumental and historic coalition built around this
bill and congressional leaders designed it in a way to merit support
across the aisle and across the Nation.
Early on, some environmentalists charged it was a pro-drilling bill.
So we clarified the language to make sure it was drilling neutral to
gather their support.
I think--and there are some of my colleagues on the floor who can
attest to this--that perhaps we failed to go as far as we should have.
But I believe we made great strides in meeting the concerns of some of
those who claimed that this bill would have compromised private
property rights and would have allowed the Federal Government to buy up
land without willing seller provisions and congressional approval.
We worked mightily to meet those objectives, and we believe the
compromise that we came up with was fair and good along these lines.
I know for the past few years I have cajoled, bargained, and spoken
to so many of my friends and colleagues to listen to the merits of this
proposal. I am sure on more than one occasion when they saw me coming,
they ran the other way. But I believe this is so important that we
should take this step now.
When I am asked how we can afford to do this, my answer is simple:
How can we afford not to?
Since 1930, Louisiana has lost more than 1,500 square miles of marsh.
The State loses between 25 and 30 miles each year--nearly a football
field of wetlands every 30 minutes in my State.
By 2050, we will lose more than 600 square miles of marsh and almost
400 square miles of swamp.
That means the Nation will lose an area of coastal wetlands about the
size of Rhode Island--about the size of your State, Mr. President. We
are about ready to lose it.
In the past 100 years, as so eloquently spoken about yesterday by our
colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, southern Florida's
Everglades have been reduced to one-fifth their former size.
In the past 30 years, the population of blue crabs in the Chesapeake
Bay has been barely hanging on, much to the dismay, I know, of Senator
Mikulski and Senator Sarbanes, who fight
[[Page S9913]]
vigorously for renewal in the Chesapeake.
In the middle of this century, a boater could look down into Lake
Tahoe's depths and see 100 feet. Today that is more like 60, or 70, and
dropping every day. Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer know that CARA
could be one of the answers--not the only answer but truly one of the
answers to help.
These facts are staggering. More importantly, it will take decades to
turn it around.
So let's begin now.
I ask each of my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of our
Governors, our mayors, and our natural resource officials. All of these
local officials are charged just as we are with developing long-range
strategies to combat vanishing coastlines, disappearing wildlife, and
crumbling treasures. But if we don't enact CARA, or something very
close to it, a funding stream they can count on year in and year out,
their efforts will be marginalized.
The Gulf of Mexico does not wait for congressional approval to claim
30 square miles of Louisiana every year. Hurricanes do not lobby
congressional appropriators before they claim precious beaches in
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the eastern seaboard. Mother nature
does not testify in front of Congress before she floods our parks, eats
away at the Everglades, and takes her toll on our historic treasures.
Let us look closely at what we are doing here today. I ask that we
not be lulled into believing that this is anything more than a minor
downpayment on a debt we owe to our children.
In the past 2 years, I think we have made much progress in
recognizing the contribution of the coastal States--particularly States
such as Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--which generate
these offshore revenues in the first place.
Because I have received assurances from both leaders, Senator Lott of
Mississippi, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota, that both coastal
impact assistance and wildlife protection can be addressed in other
bills in this Congress, I have withdrawn my objections to final passage
of this bill.
Although CARA supporters will lose the vote today, we will grow
stronger. We will come back energized and ready to fight for what our
country really needs--a true environmental legacy. The coalition knows
that this is a downpayment. And, like all who are owed a debt, we will
come to collect.
Winston Churchill once said:
Want of foresight. . .unwillingness to act when action
would be simple and effective . . . lack of clear thinking,
confusion of counsel until the emergency comes . . . until
self-preservation strikes its jarring gong. . .these are
features which constitute the endless repetition of history.
Colleagues, let us heed these words. Let us come next year prepared
with a willingness to act. Let us think clearly before the emergencies
come. Let us not wait until our environmental preservation hangs in the
balance. And let us listen to the cause of the American people--people
from my State, people from your State, people from all of our States
who say they need something on which they can depend--a steady stream
of revenue; a partnership that they can depend on to help preserve what
is best about America while protecting private property rights, while
protecting the great balance between land ownership and land
maintenance, while protecting the great needs of our coastline and our
interior.
We need a bill that America can grow on and depend on and prosper
from in the decades ahead.
I thank again the appropriators for their hard work. I thank the
authorizers for their tremendous vision.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of wonderful people who need to be thanked for their efforts
and, in doing so, not conceding that there is not still some time left
to make some corrections and improvements but recognizing that the time
is short and we will continue to pursue this avenue. But this is a list
of coalition members from the National Wildlife Federation; Sporting
Goods Manufacturers Association; National Governors' Association;
the Nature Conservancy; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources;
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation; International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies that worked so hard on this effort; U.S.
Soccer Foundation; National Wildlife Federation; Coastal Conservation
Association; Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America; Trust for Public
Lands; Coastal States Organization, which Jack Caldwell helped to head
up; National Coalition of State Historic Preservation Officers,
particularly the Governor of Oregon who was so helpful, and many other
Governors; the Wilderness Society; Southern Governors Association; my
Governor, Governor Foster, who lent a hand early on; Land Trust
Alliance; and the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
Those are just a few. There are so many more and I know my time is
probably up.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names
of many of the staff people who helped make this possible.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CARA Coalition Members
Mark Van Putten, Jodi Applegate, Jim Lyon, Steve Schimburg--
National Wildlife Federation
Sandy Briggs--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Jena Carter, Diane Shays--National Governor's Association
Tom Cassidy, Jody Thomas, David Weiman--The Nature
Conservancy
Sidney Coffee--Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Tom Cove--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Jane Danowitz--Americans for our Heritage and Recreation
Glenn Delaney, Naomi Edelson, Max Peterson--International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Jim Range--International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies/The American Airgun Field Target Association
Gary Taylor--International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies
Herb Giobbi--U.S. Soccer Foundation
Pam Goddard--National Wildlife Federation
Bob Hayes--Coastal Conservation Association
Myrna Johnson--Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America
Lesly Kane--Trust for Public Land
Tony MacDonald--Coastal States Organization
Nancy Miller--National Coalition of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Andrew Minkiewicz, Kevin Smith--Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon
Rindy O'Brien--The Wilderness Society
Beth Osborne--Southern Governor's Association
Bob Szabo--Van Ness--Feldman Law Firm
Russell Shay--Land Trust Alliance
Mark Davis--Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
Actively Supportive Members and Staffs
Senator Thomas Daschle--Mark Childress, Eric Washburn
Senator Trent Lott--Jim Ziglar
Senator Bingaman--Minority Energy Committee Staff: Bob Simon,
Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Mark Katherine Ishee, Kyra
Finkler
Senator Murkowski--Majority Energy Committee Staff: Andrew
Lundquist, Kelly Johnson
Senator Mike DeWine--Paul Palagyi
Senator John Breaux--Fred Hatfield, Stephanie Leger, Mallory
Moore
Senator Max Baucus--Brian Kuehl, Norma Jane Sabiston, Jason
Schendle, Aylin Azikalin, Alyson Azodeh
All democratic colleagues on Energy Committee and Senator
Fitzgerald.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I end by saying that sometimes it takes
a bold act to receive something on which we can really build. CARA is a
bold act.
In a bill with $15 billion, asking for a few hundred million for
States and local governments, a few hundred million for our coastal
communities, a few hundred million for wildlife, was not too much to
ask. I am very hopeful in the years ahead we can meet the promise of
CARA.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed excerpts of editorial
support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Why CARA? Why Now?
Excerpts of Editorial Support for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
``It's a bold approach to environmental conservation and
restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the
squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of
Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to
be it.'' Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 18, 2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act has the magic to
get through Congress in an election year: money for lots of
states, creative compromises and an odd-couple pair of
sponsors from the right and left.''--Seattle Times, May 9,
2000.
``Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that
this measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days
of an election-
[[Page S9914]]
year session. Citizens should press Congress to get it onto
the desk of President Clinton, who should sign it.''--
Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, September 19, 2000.
``This measure should be plucked from the pack and made
law.''--Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2000.
``By passing the act, the Senate will demonstrate that in
the current prosperity, America is not forgetting its other
riches, those bestowed on it by nature.''--San Jose Mercury
News, September 17, 2000.
``As Congress churns though its last days before
adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be
left in the dust: the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or
CARA.''--Chicago Tribune, September 16, 2000.
``Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two
of the most important conservation bills in many years. One
bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee
$45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental
purposes, including wilderness protection.''--The New York
Times, September 13, 2000.
``One of the most important and comprehensive pieces of
conservation legislation in U.S. history deserves immediate
passage by the Senate. It is a bill most Americans have never
heard of: The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA.''--
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 11, 2000.
``This is a rare piece of legislation. Its purpose is clear
and simple. Its funding is ready. Its public benefit would be
immense, and so would its public support, if anyone could
hear about it through the blare of electioneering. All it
needs is attention by our senators in the next three
weeks.''--San Diego Union-Tribune, September 7, 2000.
``Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why
Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of
the environmental money generated by offshore oil revenues.
And maybe that's because their states aren't
disappearing.''--The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune, July 18,
2000.
``Back in the '60s, Congress set aside $900 million yearly
from offshore oil revenue for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to finance purchases of important natural beauty spots.
But over the years Congress routinely robbed the fund to
spend the money elsewhere, and Iowa was routinely shut out
when the remainder was divided. CARA restores the fund and
adds much more.''--The Des Moines Register, July 8, 2000.
``This landmark legislation deserves a chance, and it will
be a shame if opponents manage to use the clock or
unreasonable arguments to kill it. While senators out West
worry about the federal government gaining more control over
land, those of us who live in Louisiana worry about the acres
of coast that are crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico. One fear
is speculation, the other is all too real.''--The (New
Orleans) Times-Picayune, September 19, 2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a necessary and
sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its
natural heritage. It deserves the Senate's support.''--The
Tampa Tribune, July 7, 2000.
``CARA is considered to be the most significant
conservation funding legislation any Congress has ever
considered.''--Times Daily (Florence, Alabama), July 10,
2000.
``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a strong and
balanced realization of the philosophy that government
revenues generated by exploiting natural resources ought to
be spent, in large part, on protecting resources elsewhere.
That's philosophy that Congress has long honored on paper,
and should now put into practice.''--The (Minneapolis) Star
Tribune, July 3, 2000.
``One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the
ability to focus on smaller projects than the federal
government normally would, including urban green spaces,
walkways and small slices of important habitat. For those
with visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of
selective preservation of natural spots in the path of
development, CARA is a dream come true--if the senators
controlling its fate will set it free.''--Detroit Free Press,
June 27, 2000.
``The most important land conservation bill in many years
is now before the United States Senate, and time is running
out.''--The New York Times, June 27, 2000.
``It's a reasonable, bipartisan way for America to create
long-term funding for conserving our natural heritage.''--The
(Salem, Oregon) Statesman Journal, June 14, 2000.
``CARA is a good program that promotes local initiative
toward parks, resource conservation and historic
preservation. We hope our senators change their positions and
give the support it deserves.''--The Idaho Statesman, June
13, 2000.
``We need to make it clear that we, the American people,
want the Senate to pass the most significant wildlife, parks
and recreation legislation in over 30 years.''--The Pueblo
(Colorado) Chieftain, June 11, 2000.
``This is a quality-of-life bill for the future, one that
holds enormous promise for the protection of dwindling
natural and cultural resources. Passage means benefits for
the current generation of Americans, and a chance to continue
those gains for generations yet to come.''--The Buffalo (New
York) News, May 22, 2000.
``So long as good sense continues to prevail, this
legislation may signal the beginning of an era, none too
soon, in which environmental impact has a more prominent seat
at the table.''--Winston-Salem Journal, May 19, 2000.
____
[From the Kansas City Star, Oct. 5, 2000]
Conservation Money
The proposed Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would
transfer millions of dollars from federal off-shore oil
leases to financially starved local and state parks and
wildlife programs, is in trouble.
Thanks to a deal devised by congressional negotiators on
the Interior Department appropriations bill, the House has
approved a pale version of the landmark legislation that
earlier had been endorsed by two-thirds of the House, more
than half of the Senate and President Clinton.
The President has endorsed this inferior agreement, saying
that ``while we had hoped for even more'' he wanted to praise
the conservation, wildlife and recreation groups, as well as
citizens, who worked so hard for the conservation act.
This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent
bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the
one approved by Congress. It falls far short of the original
that has been pushed by conservation groups, cities, counties
and states.
Under a strong bipartisan effort, Congress has been on the
verge of restoring the money to its rightful uses. Of the $3
billion CARA would provide, Missouri annually stands to gain
$34.7 million and Kansas $17.3 million for natural resource
preservation and parkland acquisition. Kansas and Missouri
cities and counties could use their share of the money to
improve state and local parks, purchase land for parks, and
other recreational purposes.
The substitute version falls short in the money it would
guarantee over the long term. In one example, $350 million
annually for nongame wildlife programs has been cut to $50
million.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom
Daschle have announced their intention to push to restore
CARA to its former self. They are backed by the nation's
governors, who have sought significant conservation funding
for state needs. The original version is the one that should
be passed.
Approval of CARA could be one of the most significant
victories of this Congress.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to take the remaining time of the
Senator from Arizona, which I believe is 4 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator allow me to use 5 minutes
of my time as the ranking member on the subcommittee?
Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I trust that the distinguished Senator will not leave the
floor. I hope he will follow me immediately. If he is in great haste, I
will be glad to yield to him.
Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the short time available before the
Senate votes on final passage of the Interior appropriations conference
report, I want to again urge my colleagues to support this measure. It
is a good compromise that balances the needs of our parks, our forests,
our wildlife refuges, and our trust responsibilities to American
Indians, against the resources made available to us. That task--the
task of reconciling identified needs with limited resources--is not
easy.
I am particularly pleased with the level of funding in this bill for
fossil energy research. The new power plant improvement initiative,
along with the other fossil energy research programs in the Department
of Energy, are critical to this nation's energy security. Working to
curtail our reliance on imported oil, and ensuring that our current
fleet of power plants are efficient and environmentally sound, should
be the cornerstone of the next administration's energy policy. I can
assure the next president, whomever he may be, that I, for one, am
ready to assist in that endeavor.
Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment to thank the chairman of
the full committee, Senator Ted Stevens, for his interest in this bill,
for his continued support, and for his willingness to work with Senator
Gorton and me to ensure that we were able to get to this point. In
particular, I am grateful for his help in making additional resources
available to the Interior subcommittee. Without those resources, we
could not have crafted this bill.
Finally, Mr. President, let me again thank my colleague, the
subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton. He and his staff have truly been
a pleasure to work with.
When I talk of staff, let me briefly mention my own staff person,
Peter Kiefhaber. I believe this is his first bill, first major bill, to
assist me on this
[[Page S9915]]
floor throughout the markup, throughout the hearings. He has done a
masterful job as a new person in that position. I thank him and I
congratulate him.
I yield the floor now. I yield my remaining time to Senator Gorton.
I, again, thank the distinguished Senator for yielding when he had
the floor, to allow me to make this brief statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask to take the 4 minutes that was available to the
Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the opportunity to visit just a moment on a
subject that is very close to my heart and very close to my interests.
I am from Wyoming, a State that has open space throughout a great deal
of the State. It is the eighth largest State in the United States and
still the smallest population. I grew up near Yellowstone Park. Those
are things I feel very strongly about.
I want to do two things--one, to comment on the good proposal of the
Senator from Louisiana and her passionate defense of it. I understand
that. I respect that a great deal. There are some things that are
disadvantageous about CARA that we have talked about. One, of course,
is the idea it makes it mandatory spending for 15 years. This is an
entitlement. As we look at our budget now, about a third of our budget
is up to the Congress to allocate. The rest of it is entitlements.
I came from serving in the Wyoming Legislature where the legislature
now only has control over 25 percent of the dollars. I think that is a
dangerous position, and entitlements become a real problem.
Also, as we look toward the land acquisition, there are a number of
things we need to be concerned about in this year's budget. From this
administration, there was more interest on the purchase plan than the
maintenance plan. We have 379 parks in this country, most of which are
in desperate need of infrastructure help, but it seems as if the more
popular thing to talk about is the acquisition of more land.
Fifty percent of my State belongs to the Federal Government; 85 percent
of Nevada in the west along the Rocky Mountain area, most of the land
now belongs to the Federal Government.
We asked in committee if we could have some kind of protection in
this allocation of CARA of $45 billion, that we would not have any more
Federal land; that, indeed, if Federal lands were to be purchased, we
would have an opportunity to dispose of some Federal land so there
would be basically no net gain. It seems to me that is reasonable. The
supporters of CARA were not willing to talk about that.
In conclusion, I think there is a great deal of merit in the bill
before the Senate. It isn't, of course, what everyone wants. There are
more expenditures to it than some like. It does reflect help however,
for the losses that were incurred because of the forest fires--6.6
million acres in the West burned this year and the costs associated and
the losses associated there.
I am going to support this bill. I am pleased. I thank the chairman
for his good work in getting this bill before the Senate.
I will comment on the fact that not only in this bill but in a number
of bills there are authorizations for things I think are
inappropriately authorized in appropriations bills. In this bill there
are some parks, for example, and set-asides which certainly ought to
come from the authorizing committee, not from the Appropriations
Committee.
I understand what happens. We get toward the end of the year, and
there are things there, people want something to happen and we are in
danger of having a lot of that happen in the next week or so. I hope it
does not. We have a system where there is an authorization and there is
an appropriation.
I don't think anyone in this place is more anxious to have dollars
available to do something with conservation, to do something with
preservation, to do something with easements, to do something with
maintenance of the land we already have, but I think we have to make
sure those bills, indeed, have the composition that makes them the
kinds of things that we need to have in this Congress and that is to
have them authorized yearly or at least in shorter spans than 15 years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I make some general remarks, I will
respond to the three--and I think there have only been three--critics
of this bill.
For the better part of 3 days, the Senate has indulged in the remarks
of the Senator from Illinois over one item out of many hundreds in this
bill. Normally speaking, items such as the Lincoln Library are included
in bills such as this because the Senators from the States concerned
believe they are important and because we believe they are reasonable
national priorities. I think I can assure the Senator from Illinois and
the body that, had I known we were going to go through this process,
there would have been no money for this project in this bill at all. It
may very well be there will be no more tomorrow.
I do think a library for Abraham Lincoln's papers in Springfield, IL,
is an appropriate project. The State of Illinois and various local
entities and individuals are providing the great majority of the money
that is going into that project. The Senator from Illinois has engaged
in a filibuster, required the vote of 89-8 on cloture, all over the
bidding practices with respect to the way in which that project is
undertaken, as to whether or not they ought to be Federal bidding
practices or the State of Illinois' bidding practices--bidding
practices of the State of Illinois that I believe he had something to
do with creating while he was a member of the legislature of that body.
Even under the bill as it appears here, the Secretary of the Interior
has the authority to review the design, method of acquisition, and the
estimated cost, and can deal with anything that the Secretary believes
to be untoward in this entire question. But I have to say that to spend
3 days of the time of the Senate on this internal dispute involving
Members of Congress and others from the State of Illinois was an
imposition on the time of the Senate at any time, but especially when
the Senate is attempting to finish many important bills of which this
is one, but only one. We will go forward with it at this point. We will
pass the bill at this point. I believe the President of the United
States will sign it at this point. But I can certainly not remember any
other instance in which a Member from a State that is getting a benefit
from the bill has looked so carefully at the teeth of a gift horse.
The second question I raise is about some of the criticisms from my
good friend, the Senator from Arizona. He complains about money in this
bill for carriage barn rehabilitation at the Longfellow National
Historic Site. That is a national park site. That is the very kind of
thing that we must rehabilitate. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, when he
lived at his place, had a carriage barn. I don't know whether the
Senator from Arizona feels we should let it fall down, but my own view
is our first duty is to maintain the national park sites that we have
at the present time. The Senator from Wyoming has just referred to
that. How that constitutes pork, or a reason to vote against this bill,
is, I must say, beyond my understanding.
He complains about dollars for the southeast Alaska disaster fund
that he claims were not included in either the House or the Senate
bill. In fact, they were included in the Senate bill under a different
account number.
He complains about $30 million for site-specific earmarks or
emergency funds, one quarter of which turn out to be--slightly more
than one quarter--for hazardous fuels reduction activities carried on
by Northern Arizona University.
When I was on the floor, he was complaining about the rehabilitation
of a fish hatchery in White Sulfur Springs, WV, which was requested by
my good friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Again, I
am puzzled why it is we should not provide such office rehabilitation
at a site that is a specific function of the people of the United
States.
In other words, I don't find those criticisms to have any particular
merit whatsoever. This is our business. It is the business of this bill
to see to it
[[Page S9916]]
that the lands and historic sites and facilities of the United States
of America are properly maintained. I think one of the great
shortcomings, one of the overwhelming shortcomings that we have had in
the last few years is that we have not been maintaining these sites to
the extent they ought to be maintained. One of the goals, which I have
accomplished in this bill, is to increase the amount of money for that
maintenance, both in the regular bill and in this supplement to this
bill that is the third item of controversy here today.
This bill is criticized by the Senator from Louisiana as not
including the full authorization for the so-called CARA bill, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. She is certainly correct; it does
not. That bill is an almost $3-billion-a-year entitlement for some 15
years, the net result of which is that the items included in it are
deemed to be more important, should that bill pass the Congress of the
United States, than saving the Social Security system, than education,
than health care, or any of the other items for which we appropriate
every year. In my view, it is utterly inappropriate as an entitlement
that automatically comes off the top, before all the other priorities
of the people of the United States.
On the other hand, many of the items preferred in that CARA
legislation are highly worthy items, items for which this subcommittee
chairman is delighted to have what now amounts to a greater
authorization. Many of them will be more liberally funded in the future
as a result of the proposals that are a part of this bill now.
It is said--it was said in that criticism--that this bill sends all
the money through the Federal bureaucracy rather than CARA sending it
directly to the States. First, it doesn't send all the money through
the Federal bureaucracy. Many of these programs are existing programs
that result in formula grants to the States, and others are competitive
grants to the States. At this point, the Congress can, through its
authorizing committees, change the distribution formula for any one of
these programs, either to make them more direct or more focused. CARA,
of course, doesn't send all its money directly to the States, either.
It does include large amounts for payment to coastal States but they
are for new programs which are not even authorized at this point and
will not be unless some bill of that nature is passed.
Second, this is criticized by some conservatives for not providing
protections for private property. The Interior bill funds currently
authorized programs. It doesn't authorize them; it funds currently
authorized programs and therefore, by definition, includes every
protection for private property that exists in any one of those
authorizing laws. If there are shortcomings in this field, it is not
the fault of the Appropriations Committee but of the very authorizing
committee that presented CARA to us in the first place.
For Federal land acquisitions that are funded by this CARA-lite, in
future years everyone is going to be subject to the same process as is
used at the present time. They are all going to go through
appropriations committees. I can assure my colleagues, I cannot think
of a case where this committee has approved a project that did not have
the support of the relevant Members of Congress, except maybe for this
one in Illinois, which has been the subject of debate for some 3 days.
So that objection is simply not valid.
It is also pointed out this bill does not provide States and local
governments with a predictable funding stream. You bet your life it
does not, and it was not so designed. Why should we give a predictable
funding stream for grant programs to State and local governments in
precedence to the very programs for which we are directly responsible?
We do not have a fully predictable or legally enforceable funding
stream for schools. We don't have it for most of our health care
programs. We don't have it for research and development programs. We
don't have it for a wide variety of the programs that are subject to
debate every year. It is just for that reason that we do not have it.
They should be subject to debate and revision with respect to
priorities every year. That is why we have a Congress.
On the other hand, this new title does provide a decidedly increased
likelihood that these grant programs will be sustained and will
increase in future years.
What this bill does is to say that if you do not spend this money on
the programs outlined in this bill, you cannot spend it on something
else, but it will go to reducing the national debt. It is only a couple
months. Members on both sides of the aisle vociferously were saying
that a reduction of the national debt was the most important single
economic activity in which we could engage. Chairman Greenspan was
quoted constantly on the floor of the Senate. We forgot that when some
decided we needed these ``predictable funding streams,'' that is to
say, entitlements which come directly out of debt reduction.
I have never been able to see the logic of a 15-year guaranteed
funding stream that could not easily be adjusted if the programs were
ineffective or if we went into economic times in which there were
higher priorities.
Those are some of the critiques of the particular proposal,
additional portions of which are likely to be included in the
appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice, particularly the oceans
portions of it which will be debated later.
Finally, Senator Graham from Florida criticized the bill for not
providing adequate funds for national parks. While CARA would have
guaranteed an extra $100 million per year for the National Park
Service--Mr. President, I am allowed to take time from Senator Stevens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. The answer is, of course, CARA did not either. CARA gave
money to the National Park Service above the line but not below the
line, and very likely future Congresses will simply reduce the
discretionary portion of that account by the amount guaranteed in CARA
itself.
It was at my insistence that this CARA-lite does include an item, I
believe $150 million a year, for national park maintenance. I think
that is one of the most important elements of the bill itself.
The vote on cloture indicated the broad support for this bill, as did
the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. For
that overwhelming bipartisan support, I owe particular thanks to
Senator Byrd for helping me in developing the conference agreement and
shaping it in a way that merits the support of Members on both sides of
the aisle. His new staff minority clerk, Peter Kiefhaber, has been a
tremendous asset during the course of his first year. He has been ably
assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff and Scott Dalzell, who
has been with us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I thank my own exemplary staff: Bruce Evans, who is sitting here with
me, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Christine Drager, and Joe Norrell, as
well as our detailee, Sheila Sweeney, and Kari Vander Stoep of my
personal staff. All have also worked so many hours on this bill that I
do not dare count them for fear of feeling ashamed. They have worked
extremely hard, but they have been successful and have every reason to
be gratified with their work.
I note for the record this is the last year in which I will be
privileged to work with my counterpart chairman, Congressman Ralph
Regula from the House of Representatives. He will have another
subcommittee next year, and I tell you, I will miss him. I have never
dealt with anyone in this body or in the other body with whom I have
had a more positive and affirmative, constructive working relationship,
often with a great many laughs because of his marvelous sense of humor.
Ralph Regula will have left a substantial legacy of increased priority
for the maintenance of our Federal lands and facilities and a great
approach in a matter of principle.
In summary, this is a popular bill that has every right to be popular
because it meets with many of the needs of deferred maintenance for
past neglect. It has many projects in it that are of great importance
to Members on both sides of the partisan divide in this body and our
significant national priorities as well, and will get us through
another year with respect not just to these natural resources used in
energy
[[Page S9917]]
research and cultural institutions in the United States but in a way I
think worthy and which I recommend heartily to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. GORTON. 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 the conference report. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--13
Breaux
Brownback
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Helms
Inhofe
Landrieu
McCain
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--4
Feinstein
Jeffords
Kennedy
Lieberman
The conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
____________________