[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 97 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7554-S7577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 2217, which the clerk will report by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Byrd amendment No. 880, to make a technical correction.
Nelson of Florida amendment No. 893, to prohibit the use of
funds to execute a final lease agreement for oil and gas
development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as
``Lease Sale 181.''
Amendment No. 893
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Nelson amendment
No. 893.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I
say to Senator Graham, if he would like some time of the 2 minutes for
closing, I will certainly yield to him.
Madam President, yesterday we had the Durbin amendment, and it was
not tabled by a vote of 57-42. It was on the issue of oil drilling in
national monuments, national treasures.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the beaches of Florida are
national treasures to us because of the importance of the beaches to
our economy. If there is an oilspill, and a slick comes in on one of
our beaches, it will shut down a beach, such as Clearwater Beach, for
years and years. In an economy with a $50 billion tourism industry, in
the Nation's fourth largest State, that is simply not worth the risk to
us in Florida.
For the first time, the eastern planning area of the gulf, which
heretofore has not been drilled, save for one test drill up here, is
being invaded by this offering for lease of 1.5 million acres coming
across the line. It is inevitable, in the march eastward, it would go
straight toward Tampa Bay.
This is a matter of national treasure to us. You all honored that
yesterday in adopting the Durbin amendment, by not allowing drilling in
the areas of national monuments. Senator Graham and I ask that you join
with us today in helping us preserve our national treasure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to oppose this amendment and
urge my colleagues to join with Senator Breaux, myself, and others--a
bipartisan group--in opposing this amendment.
We have a problem in this Nation. Our demand for energy is too high
and our supply is not great enough. We use 30 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. We only have 25 trillion cubic feet. We think the Gulf of
Mexico, in places far from the shores of Florida, has an ample supply
of natural gas.
Let us not move in the wrong direction. Our country needs us to
respond in a positive way. This is not a new area. It is rich with
natural gas. It was a compromise reached by a Democratic administration
with many environmental organizations and with the industry. It is
moderate.
If you are for rolling blackouts and high prices, vote with Senator
Nelson. If you are for reasonable energy policy, vote with me when I
move, on behalf of Senator Breaux, to table this amendment.
I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
Mr. BREAUX. How much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
I bring to the attention of my colleagues, lease sale 181 was
proposed by President Bill Clinton. It was this entire tract of area
that I show you on this map. Democratic President Bill Clinton proposed
it. The Democratic Governor of Florida at the time was Governor Lawton
Chiles, our former colleague. He agreed to lease sale 181 because he
took into consideration where it was located. They signed off on it.
In addition to that, the Democratic energy bill offered by our
chairman, Jeff Bingaman, calls for going forward with lease sale 181.
The potential natural gas in this lease sale, which has now been
reduced in size by 75 percent, could supply 7 years' worth of natural
gas to the State of Florida.
I ask, if we can't drill for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of
Mexico, where in the world are we going to find it?
I think we should table the Nelson amendment. It is bad energy
policy. It is not appropriate to undermine the carefully balanced
proposal by President Clinton and also now by President Bush. We should
table the amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 893.
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--33
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Carnahan
Cleland
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that we
automatically go to the Interior bill, is that right, for the purpose
of further debate and amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Oregon has an amendment he wishes to
offer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Amendment No. 899
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The pending amendment will be set
aside and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith of Oregon] proposes an
amendment numbered 899.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S7555]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take certain
actions for the recovery of the lost river sucker and the shortnose
sucker, and to clarify the operations of the Klamath Project in Oregon
and California, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
``None of the funds made available under this or any other
Act may be used to provide any flows from the Klamath Project
other than those set forth in the 1992 biological opinion for
Lost River and shortnose suckers and the July 1999 biological
opinion on project operations issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, until the Fish and Wildlife Service takes
the following actions identified or discussed in the April
1993 recovery plan for Lost River suckers and shortnose
suckers:
(a) establishes at least one stable refugial population
with a minimum of 500 adult fish for each unique stock of
Lost River and shortnose suckers;
(b) secures refugial sites for upper Klamath Lake suckers:
(c) uses aeration for improving water quality and to expand
refugial areas of relatively good water quality within Upper
Klamath Lake;
(d) improves larval rearing and refuge habitat in the lower
Williamson and Wood Rivers through increased vegetative
cover;
(e) extirpates exotic species that are predators of the
suckers:
(f) assesses the need for captive propagation and the
potential for improving sucker stocks through
supplementation, and the Secretary has submitted a report,
including recommendations, to the Congress;
(g) implements a plan to monitor relative abundance of all
life stages for all sucker populations;
(h) develops a plan to reduce losses of fish due to water
diversions;
(i) determines the distribution and abundance of suckers in
all waterbodies in the Upper Klamath Basin;
(j) implements the plan for wetland rehabilitation pilot
projects;
(k) implements the most effective strategy to provide fish
passage upstream of the Sprague River Dam;
(l) implements the plan to enhance spring spawning habitat
in Upper Klamath Lake and Agency Lake;
and develops water management plans and land management
plans, including sump rotations where appropriate, for the
national wildlife refuges that receive water from the Klamath
Project; and subsequently completes an evaluation of the
impact of these actions on the recovery of the suckers before
determining whether further modifications to project
operations are needed and submits such evaluation to the
Secretary of the Interior and to the Congress.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, many Americans are becoming
familiar with a part of my State and a part of California known as the
Klamath Basin because of the coverage of a tragic situation that has
developed there in a contest between suckerfish and farmers. If I may
be permitted, I will put some context to this conflict.
I am the first Senator to be elected from Oregon who comes from its
rural parts--eastern Oregon--in 70 years. I represent all of my State,
but I have a special passion to represent those rural parts that I have
watched be devastated for too long by Federal action. I believe the
Endangered Species Act is a noble act with noble purposes, but I
believe it is being used by some to very ignoble ends.
My actions today are not to subvert the Endangered Species Act. This
is not reform. This is an act asking that its terms be implemented in a
way that will relieve genuine human suffering in a way that may prevent
the violence that has already been visited upon Federal property in a
contest between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the essential
ingredient to life in the West, and that is water.
What has happened to the community of Klamath Falls, by conservative
estimates, will cost that county $200 million. I thank the Senator from
West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and
others, who helped me to get $20 million of relief to these people.
Obviously, it is 10 percent of what is needed, even by conservative
estimates.
What I propose to do today is to try to go back to a biological
opinion that was in place just last April that would have permitted
this drought to be managed as were the droughts in 1992 and in 1994, in
which the suckerfish survived, as did the agricultural community around
it.
When I speak of the agricultural community, I have to also mention
the wildlife refuges that get their water from this basin but which are
now drying up. So farmers and fowl are left with nothing under the new
biological opinion.
I do this because, in 1993, the Fish and Wildlife Service laid out a
plan of action for what it could do to save the suckerfish, so that
200,000 acres of land continue to receive water and that fish could
survive. But none of these proposed action plans were pursued. For
example, it recommended the removal of the Sprague River Dam, which
would have made available tremendous spawning areas for the suckerfish.
But that wasn't done. And there were many other actions that could have
been taken to provide aeration, to improve the condition of this lake,
so that the suckerfish could survive and the farmers along with it.
But now what we are doing is we are raising this lake 3 feet--it is a
very big lake, very shallow, but it is being raised 3 feet--and cutting
off all the water to farmers and fowl. It is being done to save the
suckerfish, and now, while it is being saved, it is warming up. So the
coho salmon that will soon be returning expecting to receive the cool
waters of the Klamath will receive waters the temperature of a swimming
pool. So, potentially, even the coho salmon--which is also a listed
species--could be adversely affected by this biological opinion.
Well, there are two agencies of the Federal Government that are
competing. One biological opinion is Fish and Wildlife with regard to
the suckerfish. The other is the biological opinion of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the Commerce Department that affects the
coho salmon. Both biological opinions essentially ask for 100 percent
of the water which means cutting off 100 percent of the people.
The point I want to make is that would not be necessary if the
Federal Government over the last 8 years would have kept its part of
the bargain and done what it could to mitigate the impact to the sucker
so that farmers would not be victimized.
What I do is simply reinstate the previous biological opinions that
were in effect before this spring until the Federal Government can
complete action on numerous recommendations of its 1993 recovery plan.
Again, they were not acted upon over the last 8 years. Why? They say
budgetary reasons.
I want this to be a priority. I want the budget to fix this problem.
I do not want the whole budget burden thrown on the backs of rural
people, but that is what was decided to be done.
I want to put some other context to this. This is a current farm
family in Klamath Falls. These are the human faces being affected by
what is being done. Foreclosure notices are already going out. Let me
tell my colleagues about their parents. These are the parents. This is
the front cover of Life magazine, January 20, 1947. This is a veteran
of the Second World War. These are people who came home, having saved
liberty, having defended democracy, having made the United States the
power in the world that it is today, the force for good that it is
today.
In his wisdom, Franklin Roosevelt, even before the war, began to open
up this land so that people would have a way to escape the Great
Depression, coming home from the war, and a place to go to work.
This is the land, the valley. I do not know whether my colleagues can
see it, but this couple is overlooking the Klamath Basin--farms being
developed, hay being raised, corn being raised, potatoes being raised
that fill our shelves today. Look at the hopes and dreams in the faces
of these people.
This is a little girl at an assembly of people at a rally a few weeks
ago. Her sign says: ``Mommy says I can't eat, but fish can.''
That is what we are driving them to, and it is not right because they
are being told they are of lesser value under our law than the
shortnosed sucker.
This is a picture of the shortnosed sucker. It is a bottom-feeding
fish. It lives in this shallow lake. It has gone through many droughts
along with the farmers. It has survived, stressed, I am sure, just as
humans are stressed in conditions of drought.
I am not saying this fish has no value. I have never thought the
suckerfish is very good looking, but it has a mother, and that mother,
I am sure, loves this fish. I know the Native Americans in this area
value this fish,
[[Page S7556]]
and I am not suggesting in any way that we are not interested in saving
this fish.
I am saying the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was not to
engage in a process of rural cleansing, of throwing off their property
people who had been given great promise and hope for the future. They
are meeting the mailmen with foreclosure notices because the Federal
Government decided it is going to breach its promise.
Let me show you, Mr. President, the deeds of the lands they were
given. These are veterans. I doubt you can see it, but this is a deed
assigned to a veteran of the Second World War to go to Klamath. The
veteran's name goes in this space, and it is signed by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt.
My point is that when we proceed to engage in environmental
restoration, we must not forget that we have a human concern as well.
We can do both, I am absolutely convinced of it, but we cannot do both
under this condition.
This Klamath circumstance is different than other endangered species
conflicts that always seem to pit the man against the beast. This is
different. This is about something that is possible, where we can save
the fish and we do not sacrifice the people.
I want to keep Franklin Roosevelt's promise alive today because these
reclamation projects were greatly expanded under his leadership and an
inland empire was built of rural people, but now those people are being
told they are of lesser value than the suckerfish. I do not think
Franklin Roosevelt would agree. I do not agree.
Mr. President, I plead for my colleagues to remember the human faces
in this picture, to remember the promises made, and to help me help
these people. This is not about a fish versus a farmer, unless we go
down the road of these current biological opinions which have not been
peer reviewed, in which the people there have no confidence. They are
biological opinions that began with a determined outcome, and all of
the activities that were said would be pursued--to provide off-stream
impoundment, take out a dam, provide some aeration--none of those
things was done.
The only way I am going to get the Interior Department to understand
that it cannot forget its human stewardship, that the Bureau's promises
still ought to matter, is to go back to the old opinion and tell them
that the new one cannot happen until they keep the promises made in
1993. In the meantime, this fish will survive, but my farmers will not
if we do not begin to reverse course.
It is too late for this year's crops, I grant you that, but it is
turning into a dust bowl that existed prior to Franklin Roosevelt's
vision, and foreclosure notices are going out. At least now we can
offer some hope that we, on our watch, will not permit this to be
repeated. We need to give them some more money to make sure that no
farm is lost to foreclosure because of Government inaction and then
this action. But we have to help. We have to say this will not happen
again.
I do not know how to plead this in as personal terms as I can for the
help of this body to head off a disaster. This is not fish versus
farmers. It does not have to be that. But it is that now under what has
happened over the last 8 years.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. In relation to the Smith amendment, I move to table. I ask
for the yeas and nays. And I further ask unanimous consent that the
vote be held at 1:45. There are a number of people who are unable to
come to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to
table?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that prior to the 1:45 vote, the
Senator from Oregon be granted 2 minutes and the Senator from
California be granted 2 minutes to explain the amendment to the Members
of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada for making a
motion to table the Smith amendment, which we will vote on at
approximately 1:45. I wanted to thank my friend from Arizona who has an
amendment he wants to lay down. He was gracious to allow me to go ahead
of him and just not to interrupt the debate.
I hope the motion to table the Smith of Oregon amendment does carry.
We all share deep concerns about the current drought in southern Oregon
and in northern California. My constituents have also been hard hit by
this very dry year. But I think we cannot legislate on an issue that is
so far-reaching by bringing an amendment to the floor before we have
even looked at the possible remedies.
I joined my colleague from Oregon in seeking $20 million in economic
relief for losses facing Klamath Basin farmers, and I certainly pledge
to continue working with him to seek more funding and a long-term
solution to this very vexing problem of getting enough water for
everyone who needs it and everyone who deserves it.
The whole history of my State is, in many ways, built around the
water issue. It is something we deal with all the time because we have
more ag than any other State. It is one of our biggest businesses in
California. We also know our State thrives because of tourism, our
environmental ethic is very strong, and because we have such a
magnificent State we get the tourists.
Of course, we have more people than any other State in the Union--now
almost 34 million people. So you have a constant debate, if you will, a
constant struggle, if you will, between all the stakeholders. Everyone
has something at stake with the water supply: The farmer, urban users,
suburban users, and certainly the wildlife which do not have a voice,
but we have to be their voice.
I can't join my colleague from Oregon in undermining the Endangered
Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a recent opinion
tells us that without this water the endangered fish will go extinct.
Science tells us through the Fish and Wildlife Service that there are
two species of fish that will become extinct if we carry out the plan
of the Senator from Oregon.
If we are going to take an action that would lead to the extinction
of two species of fish, it ought to be done with a little different
format and not come as an amendment to the appropriations bill.
I agree that it is very possible that the Fish and Wildlife Service
has not fully implemented its 1993 recovery plan for these fish. I call
on them to implement that plan. But cutting off water to the fish this
year doesn't solve that problem. It will cause the extinction to take
place.
I know that the immediate needs of my constituents in the farm areas
and those in Oregon will not be helped this year. The reality is that
most of the region's farmers didn't plant this year because they knew
about this drought. Taking the water from these fish and the needs of
these species is not going to help the farmers now. But economic relief
will help them. I am certainly committed to that.
We need to answer the dire needs of the farmers of the Klamath Basin.
But driving the fish to extinction while providing little real gain to
our farmers is certainly the answer.
It is very hard to look constituents in the eye when they have a
problem and say: If we help you make a move now that you say will help
you even though, in fact, in this case it wouldn't really help this
year, we can't do it because there is a bigger question; that is, the
delicate balance in terms of who needs this water. It is hard to do
that. But I think we can't come running to the floor every time to
undermine laws that are in place--for real reasons. I happen to believe
that we have the Endangered Species Act because we have
[[Page S7557]]
to protect God's creatures. That is my own feeling. In fact, it is a
responsibility that we have as a people to do that. If we don't do it,
it is not going to happen. We have to move to protect these species.
Again, there may be a reason to take another look at this matter, but
I hope we will move to table. I am certainly committed to having some
hearings and moving forward with more economic relief for the farmers
that are affected in this Klamath River Basin.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation such that
there will be a vote at 1:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is to be a vote at 1:45 and there is 4
minutes of debate set aside prior to that vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield, if
the Senator from Arizona needs the extra 4 minutes, we would be happy
to work that out.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 904
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 904.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any purpose relating to
Vulcan Monument, Alabama)
On page 153, line 22, before the period, insert the
following: ``, of which no funds shall be used for any
purpose relating to Vulcan Monument, Alabama''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment I again
speak before the Senate about the compounding practice of porkbarrel
spending, particularly in this year's Interior appropriations bill.
Earlier this year, the administration and, I believe, our leadership
pledged to curb the Federal Government's practice of funding extraneous
porkbarrel spending.
I applaud the administration for its responsible fiscal stance. There
is a chance for us to get serious. It might sound amusing. But let me
tell my colleagues that, according to the Washington Post, House
Members requested 18,898 earmarks in appropriations bills passed thus
far. Considering this bill in the Senate on Interior, the subcommittee
reports that it received 1,799 requests for select projects. That is a
threefold increase since 1993.
It is shameful.
This year's Interior appropriations bill is no different. It includes
$433 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending projects that have
not been reviewed to determine if they are indeed the highest funding
priorities. This amount is $153 million higher than the bill last year.
Let me highlight a few examples for you: $5 million to pay for fish
screens in the Northwest power planning area; an increase of $2 million
for the National Fish Health Lab at the Leetown Science Center--you
will notice that most of these are designated geographically--an
additional $350,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Program; $1 million for
noxious weed management at Montana State University; $150,000 to
rehabilitate a barn at the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge in New
Hampshire; $3.5 million to renovate a single lodge in a wildlife refuge
in North Carolina; $700,000 for exhibits at the Rangle National Park in
Alaska; and an extra $160,000 set aside for public education on the
Yukon River Salmon Treaty. I think that is also Alaska.
One of my favorite monuments of porkbarrel spending, another $2
million is provided to continue refurbishing the Vulcan Monument in
Alabama. This particular monument also received $1.5 million last year.
Now we are going to spend $3.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan
Monument.
Earmarks for Alaska continue to exceed unprecedented levels, some of
which are questionable inclusions in this bill. For example, an
increase of $1.3 million is earmarked for an Alaska Native aviation
training program.
I happen to sit on the Commerce Committee. We were never asked to
authorize that.
Another $250,000 for the Alaska Market Access Program; $1.1 million
for the Cook Inlet Agriculture Association; and $2 million for
construction of kiln drying facilities.
My colleagues are well aware the National Park Service still faces a
$5 billion backlog in capital maintenance and resource needs, and we
are spending $2 million for the construction of kiln drying facilities.
After years of unchecked, questionable spending, we are in the
unfortunate position of facing critical budget constraints that will
hamper our ability to fund fully many necessary Federal programs.
Instead, we are cutting deep into the taxpayers' pockets once again by
expecting them to shell out more than $433 million in porkbarrel
spending included in this bill.
I have compiled a 24-page list of objectionable earmarks and
provisions in H.R. 2217. Unfortunately, it is too lengthy to include in
the Record. But it will be available on my Senate Web page.
Now we come to the amendment.
Here is the Vulcan God of Fire and Iron. The colossal statue of
Vulcan God of Fire and Iron was in the Palace of Mines and Metallurgy,
where it represented the great iron and fuel industries of Alabama. The
figure was cast in iron from a model by G. Morelli, a New York
sculptor. It was brought to St. Louis in sections in over seven freight
cars and mounted on a pedestal of coal and cike. The statue of Vulcan
God of Fire and Iron stood 50 feet high and weighed 100,000 pounds. It
was the largest iron casting ever made, and next to ``Liberty
Enlightening the World,'' was the largest statue ever constructed. At
the close of the Exposition the figure was removed to Birmingham and
set up in Capital Park to remain as a permanent monument. It is a very
impressive statue.
Now, in the bill before the Senate today--which, I mentioned,
contains over $430 million in spending items that have not been
properly reviewed to determine their worthiness for Federal funding--
there is another $2 million to add to the $1.5 million last to continue
Vulcan's face-lift.
At first blush, having the Federal Government give money to a Roman
god may appear to violate the constitutional separation of church and
state. Others, with some reason, may believe that this is a rather
strange use of limited tax dollars. After all, while the on-budget
Federal surplus is rapidly dwindling, why should Federal dollars pay
for a face-lift of a statue of a Roman god in Alabama?
But, Mr. President, I worry this appropriation may set a dangerous
precedent for others to follow that will only add millions and millions
to the billions and billions and billions in pork barrel spending doled
out year after year.
For example, what is to stop a Senator from sunny Arizona or New
Mexico from demanding Federal dollars for a statue of Apollo, god of
the Sun?
Or how to we prevent a Senator from California to beseech money for a
statue of Bacchus, god of wine?
Or a Senator from Georgia, home to the great city of Athens, from
asking for Federal funds to pay tribute to the Goddess Athena?
Or even a Senator form the home of some of the best hunting this side
of the Mississippi, West Virginia, from getting Federal funds for
Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt?
Maybe this is the time to stop this. Not one more Federal dollar
should be spent on this kind of foolishness.
I ask my colleagues to extinguish this Roman god of fire and strike a
victory for taxpayers--and Metis, the goddess of prudence--by
throttling down our insatiable appetite for pork barrel spenidng--
starting today.
Finally, Mr. President, there are statues--for a moment of
seriousness--all over this Nation that require refurbishing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 4 minutes have been
reserved at this time for the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from
California.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S7558]]
Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Mr. President, as I said before, there are
statues all over this Nation erected to worthy, wonderful, and
patriotic Americans as well as people from other countries that need
refurbishment. If we are going to start down this path of millions of
dollars to refurbish a statue of Vulcan, I don't know where it all
ends.
I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Arizona, it appears the two parties
in relation to the prior amendment are going to talk for a couple
minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Fine.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 899
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, the Senator from
California has 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment of the Senator
from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip and the
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for offering to
have a hearing. I hope we have a hearing. But, frankly, I need the
people of Klamath Falls to know where we are, so I am asking that we
proceed with the unanimous consent agreement that is already in place,
that we have a vote. And I know I may lose this vote. But I say to my
colleagues, these are Federal projects. These were Federal promises.
This is a Federal action now that is crushing people, some of whom have
been there for 100 years or more. I think it is deplorable that this
Government would have had a biological opinion and a whole list of
actions they said they would take, and 8 years later there is nothing
done except a new opinion that says no water for people, no water for
farms.
It is time for us to start caring about rural folks who are
increasingly powerless. I ask for a vote on their behalf.
I yield back my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized
under the previous order.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could just be told when I have used
30 seconds, and I will leave the remainder of the time for Senator
Jeffords, my chairman. And I thank him for coming down here.
Water is a vexing issue in California. We have had water wars for a
long time. You have to figure out how everyone can be at the table: The
farmers, the urban users, suburban users, and the environmental
people--people with environmental concerns--because obviously the
wildlife has no voice. We have to make sure we protect the wildlife.
If this amendment goes through today----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 30 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 10 seconds--two species of fish are gone--that
is it, extinct. That is the scientific word from Fish and Wildlife. I
hope we will defeat this amendment.
I ask my friend to continue this conversation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, unfortunately, I have to rise in support
of the motion to table. I had hoped my good friend from Oregon would
agree to withdraw his amendment so that I could hold a hearing and
ascertain for him and the public whether or not there should be an
exception granted to the Endangered Species Act with respect to this
particular problem. Unfortunately, I understand he does not desire to
do so.
This is a critical issue and for us to summarily do this would be
really inconsistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act.
That act is an important one, and it is one that has saved many species
which have resulted in huge breakthroughs in medicine and in other
ways.
We have to be very careful about what we do with respect to
endangered species. So I will support the motion to table.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment would prevent the Fish and
Wildlife Service from providing water for fish in the Klamath basin.
The water at issue here is water the Service has determined is
necessary to prevent the extinction of threatened and endangered
species like the suckerfish and coho salmon in Oregon and California.
Only 2 days ago, we approved a supplemental appropriations bill.
During that debate we heard many Members argue for additional spending
for very important priorities. Fiscal constrains prevented us for
meeting many of them. But one of the priorities we did address in that
bill dealt with the very subject of this amendment.
The bill provided $20 million to assist Oregon farmers who have been
impacted by the drought and species concerns in the Klamath basin--$20
million. They are not the only farmers who have been impacted by
drought (it's a problem that affects Nevada's farmers and ranchers this
year as well), but to my knowledge they are the only farmers that
received special aid in the supplemental.
The State of Nevada faces many of the same problems my colleague has
spoken about here this afternoon. I would like to work with him to
address those problems without modifying the Endangered Species Act in
the manner he proposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 899. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--48
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 904
Mr. REID. Mr. President, with permission of the managers of the bill,
I ask that the two Senators from Alabama each have 2 minutes to speak
in opposition to the McCain amendment, and Senator McCain have the
final 2 minutes to speak in favor of his amendment.
This appears to be the last amendment we are going to have on this
bill. The managers have informed me, along with the two leaders, that
around 4 o'clock we will have a vote on final passage. It will take
that much time to work on the managers' amendment to get together the
loose pieces.
I ask unanimous consent that we proceed now to a vote on the McCain
amendment after the two Senators from Alabama speak and the Senator
from Arizona speaks, and I also ask unanimous consent that when that
vote is completed, the Senator from Oregon be recognized to speak for 5
minutes in relation to the Smith amendment of which we just disposed.
[[Page S7559]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I am troubled, quite
frankly, that I have to defend Federal funding for historic
preservation of the Vulcan Monument, which is of great importance to
the people of Alabama and the South.
The Vulcan Monument in Birmingham, AL, is a unique and enduring
hallmark of the city. It was constructed in 1904 to mark the 100th
anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase and stands as a symbol of
economic transformation in the South. Much like the Arch, the Golden
Gate Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, and the Liberty Bell represent
their respective cities and are symbols representing greater
achievements for their communities and our Nation, the Vulcan stands as
an important historical landmark for Birmingham and represents the
rebirth of industrial development in the South.
I want the record to be clear that while Federal funds are important
to the restoration of the Vulcan Monument, city and local fundraising
efforts are leading the way towards completing the restoration project.
While the Federal share for restoration efforts reaches $3.5 million,
private citizens throughout the region have contributed over $10
million.
This is an excellent example of a public-private partnership trying
to preserve an important historical treasure for the South and our
Nation. It happens to be in Birmingham, AL.
I believe this amendment is misguided, and I pray it will be
defeated.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know Senator Shelby travels throughout
Alabama every year in every county, as do I. When we do so, we learn
something about the State. As a kid going into Birmingham, I saw the
Vulcan statue, the symbol for the steel city of Birmingham. It is a
preeminent symbol of Alabama, and there will be no other statue in the
State with as much prominence.
With the local citizens raising $10 million, with my support and
certainly that of Senator Shelby, the contribution from the Federal
Government will help complete this historical renovation and
restoration. It is a good use of the money, in my opinion as a Senator
from Alabama. It is a good priority use of money for historic
development.
I oppose the McCain amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me quote from an October 23, 2000,
issue of ``U.S. News & World Report'' entitled ``Washington Goes On A
Spending Spree.''
. . . a 56-foot, iron rendition of the Roman god of fire
and metalwork. Built as an entry for the 1904 World Fair, it
won the grand prize in the Palace of Metallurgy. Steward
Dansby, executive director of the Vulcan Park Foundation,
says officials at the organization talked to Alabama Sen.
Richard Shelby about helping to fund the renovation. ``Why
are federal tax dollars being spent on a statue in
Birmingham?'' asked Dansby. ``Because Vulcan is symbolic of
American industrial strength. He represents the working
person and. . . . [This is the best part.] These are federal
dollars that would have gone somewhere.''
There are statues all over America that need refurbishment. I hope
everybody lines up with statues that need to be refurbished because the
store seems to be open.
I know this amendment will not pass, but everybody ought to be on
record as to whether they support this kind of porkbarreling.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
904. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) is
necessarily abent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 87, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--12
Allard
Bayh
Carnahan
Ensign
Feingold
Graham
Gramm
Hollings
Kyl
McCain
Smith (NH)
Stabenow
NAYS--87
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Enzi
The amendment (No. 904) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Oregon is recognized for a period of 5 minutes.
Amendment No. 899
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few minutes ago the Senate voted on an
Endangered Species Act amendment with special impact for farmers and
rural people in my home State. I voted against the motion to table with
great reluctance and wanted to take just a couple minutes to explain my
vote this afternoon.
I think it is dangerous to legislate biological opinions about
species without the opportunity to thoughtfully review the effects of
such a far-reaching amendment. I think it is just as dangerous to force
our citizens in rural communities into dire circumstances when a law
that has accomplished many good things contains serious administrative
flaws that are producing an increasing number of bad things.
It was my intent, if the Endangered Species Act amendment had not
been tabled, to offer a second-degree amendment to it. My amendment
would have allowed the Senate to pick up on the very generous offer
made by Chairman Jeffords to try to get this job done right.
My amendment would have sought to try to address the problems in the
Klamath Basin in a comprehensive way, in a fashion that would have
helped farmers produce water conservation and improve water quality
and, at the same time, would have protected species.
I think it is very clear that the challenge with the Endangered
Species Act is to bring folks together. The challenge is to get
everybody at the table--all of the stakeholders; farmers, environmental
leaders, scientists, and others--to try to come up with ways that keep
the important protections of the Endangered Species Act and, at the
same time, encourage the administrative flexibility so we can have more
homegrown solutions.
I am absolutely convinced that the objectives of the Endangered
Species Act make a lot of sense. But what you do in the Klamath Basin
has to be different than what you do in the Bronx. And what you do in
Detroit to protect a species is different than the challenge in Coos
Bay, OR.
I look forward very much to picking up on the generous offer of
Chairman Jeffords to work with our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis,
to find comprehensive solutions to this Endangered Species Act
challenge.
As I say, I voted against the motion to table today with great
reluctance. I am very anxious to work with our colleagues, on a
bipartisan basis, for a more comprehensive solution.
Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate, on a hectic day, giving me a
few minutes this afternoon to explain my vote. I yield back and suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 975
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside, and further, I ask
[[Page S7560]]
unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk, that it be in
order, and it also be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 975.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the steel loan guarantee program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION TO STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 101 of the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51; 15 U.S.C. 1841
note) is amended as follows:
(1) Requirements for loan guarantees.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (g) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``a private bank or
investment company'' and inserting ``an institution''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (f)(1) is amended by
striking ``private banking and investment''.
(2) Terms and conditions.--Subsection (h) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2015''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Guarantee level.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any loan guarantee provided under this section shall not
exceed 85 percent of the amount of principal of the loan.
``(B) Increased level.--A loan guarantee may be provided
under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not more than
95 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan, if--
``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time
does not exceed $500,000,000; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company does not exceed $100,000,000.''.
(3) Reports to congress.--Subsection (i) is amended by
striking ``of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually
thereafter,'' and inserting ``fiscal year''.
(4) Termination of guarantee authority.--Subsection (k) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(5) Monitoring, reporting, and foreclosure procedures.--
Subsection (l) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``All monitoring, reporting, and foreclosure procedures (and
other matters addressed in the guarantee agreement)
established with respect to loan guarantees provided under
this section shall be consistent with customary practices in
the commercial banking industry. Minor or inadvertent
reporting violations shall not cause termination of any
guarantee provided under this section.''.
(6) Definition of steel companies.--Subsection (c)(3)(B) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) is engaged in--
``(i) the production or manufacture of a product identified
by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel
mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates,
flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars,
rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod;
``(ii) the production or manufacture of coke used in the
production of steel; or
``(iii) the mining of iron ore; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101 of the Emergency
Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 is further amended by
striking subsection (m).
(c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply only with respect to any guarantee issued on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mrs. BOXER. 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.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 878
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself, Mr.
Murkowski, and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 878.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To help ensure general aviation aircraft access to Federal
land and the airspace over that land)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 3__. BACKCOUNTRY LANDING STRIP ACCESS.
(a) In General.--Funds made available by this Act shall not
be used to permanently close any aircraft landing strip
described in subsection (b) without public notice,
consultation with appropriate Federal and State aviation
officials, and the consent of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(b) Aircraft landing strips.--An aircraft landing strip
referred to in subsection (a) is a landing strip on Federal
land that--
(1) is officially recognized by an appropriate Federal or
State aviation official;
(2) is administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture; and
(3) is commonly known for use for, and is consistently used
for, aircraft landing and departure activities.
(c) Permanent Closure.--For the purposes of subsection (a),
an aircraft landing strip shall be considered to be closed
permanently if the intended duration of the closure is more
than 180 days in any calendar year.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator
Burns, for the hard work they have put into this year's Interior and
related agencies appropriations bill. It is a changing process and they
have done an excellent job in balancing the competing interests within
the confines of our effort to make sure we maintain a balanced budget.
At this point, I want to explain the amendment I present. I intend to
withdraw the amendment when I am finished discussing it for reasons
that will become apparent as I discuss it. In the past couple of years,
we have seen a disturbing trend in the Department of the Interior and
in the Depart of Agriculture regarding our Forest Service relating to
back-country airstrips. The administration has begun to follow a
pattern of allowing back-country airstrips to either go into a state of
disrepair--here they become unusable--or to actually close, permanently
close some of them, which is a serious problem to those parts of our
public lands that need the services that these back-country airstrips
can supply.
Idaho, right now, is home to more than 50 of these landing strips,
and our State is known nationwide for its air access to public lands
and wilderness and primitive areas. Unfortunately, in the past, many of
these airstrips in Idaho, and in other parts of the country, have been
rendered unserviceable through the neglect I talked about earlier, or
the decisions to close the airstrips without adequate public notice or
any justification being provided.
There is a concern about this because these airstrips provide not
only access to the back country for recreational use, but they are
critical for maintenance and some of the management purposes of the
agencies in managing our public lands and fighting forest fires, for
example, or in providing the necessary access by agency personnel to
perform their work on public lands, and also as part of rescue missions
when they find the need to provide for rescue. It is those who use the
back-country airstrips who are often the ones who provide the valiant
efforts to make rescues of people who are in distress in our national
public lands.
Senators Craig and Murkowski are cosponsors with me on the
legislation to address this issue and to require the agencies to work
with State and local communities and to engage in a process of public
notice and justification. In fact, it is our hope that, ultimately, we
will be able to pass this legislation on a permanent basis. That would
require the agencies to obtain the consent of the State personnel who
are involved with the management of our airways and aviation concerns.
At this point, we were prepared to offer this amendment to the bill
this year to the Interior appropriations bill, which would have, simply
for the period of this appropriations bill, required the agencies to
consult with the State agency officials involved in aviation management
in the States, and to assure that the right kind of consultation would
occur between the various State and Federal officials before closure of
any of these landing strips in our back-country areas.
However, we have been working with the administration to try to
obviate the need to propose this amendment. I am pleased to say, that I
am now able
[[Page S7561]]
to report to the people in the country that both the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Agriculture have agreed--and I will be
submitting letters for the Record in writing to indicate this
agreement--that they will honor the purposes of this amendment and make
it the policy of those two agencies to comply with the requirements of
this amendment and to continue to work with us on our permanent
legislation so we can address this issue on a permanent basis.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can interrupt the Senator from Idaho in
an effort to develop a colloquy with the Senator with regard to
encouraging various agencies to work with the States on the issue of
backcountry airport access.
Mr. CRAPO. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is probably not applicable in areas of high
concentration of private land, but out West, we have vast areas of
virtually nothing. You can only appreciate that if you get in a small
airplane and fly over the western part of the United States or my State
of Alaska.
I had a group of Senators in a single-engine airplane a few years
ago. We had been in the air 2\1/2\ hours cruising along at about 80
knots. Finally, one of them said: How much more wilderness do I have to
see to, indeed, believe there is a lot of wilderness to be seen and
beauty to be seen?
Nevertheless, when that engine quits, you have a problem. If you do
not have some of these areas available--I know many of our friends from
the east coast and populated areas cannot quite appreciate why we need
them, but we vitally need them.
I join with my colleague in what I understand is a general commitment
from the agencies, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
the Interior, to work with the States to identify what is in the
interest of the States from the standpoint of safety access.
I commend him in that effort and hope when legislation is necessary
that our colleagues will understand we need this in the wide open
spaces out West. I see my friend from Montana who also agrees with
this. I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska
for his strong support on this issue. He is, as I indicated, a
cosponsor of the legislation we will be pursuing and was supporting us
in the effort to put this amendment on this bill again as it was last
year.
Just so we can understand correctly, I want to read into the Record
what the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture
committed to so we can begin the process, which I think is a very
important first step in moving toward resolution of this issue.
The first letter is from Secretary Gale Norton, the Secretary of the
Interior:
Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of the Interior is
committed to working with you and other Members of Congress
to develop a comprehensive process to ensure that state and
local governments and citizens have an opportunity to
participate in issues relating to backcountry airstrips
located on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Our Nation's backcountry airstrips are important to many
activities that take place on our public lands. Airstrips
provide remote access for aerial firefighting efforts, they
are an essential safety tool for pilots operating in rural
and mountainous areas, and they provide a vital link to the
outside world for many rural communities.
It is important to ensure that legitimate uses of
backcountry airstrips are protected. It is also a priority
for this Department that any proposals to alter use of
federal lands must go through open and public process that
includes close consultation with local communities. I commit
to work with you, and other members of the congressional
delegation, the State of Idaho, and local communities on any
proposals to change the use of backcountry airstrips on lands
managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The second letter is from the Department of Agriculture:
Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is
committed to working with you and other Members of Congress
to develop a comprehensive, long-term approach for managing
backcountry airstrips on lands managed by the USDA Forest
Service.
We agree that it is appropriate to maintain airstrips that
provide critical air access to rural, backcountry, or
wilderness areas; that contribute to pilot safety; or that
support aerial firefighting efforts. The Department also
agrees that these airstrips should not be permanently closed
without prior consultation with State aviation and other
appropriate officials.
We appreciate your leadership on this issue and look
forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Ann Veneman,
Secretary.
Mr. President, because we have now obtained the commitment of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior that they
will work with us in a public process and in a consultative process
with the State officials involved in managing aviation issues, and
because they have acknowledged the important critical needs of
maintaining these backcountry airstrips in good condition, and instead
of closing them, keeping them open and available for use, we do not
believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment on this legislation.
I appreciate the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture agreeing
and working with us to avoid the need for this amendment, and we
appreciate their commitment to work with us in the future on permanent
legislation that will fully resolve this issue statutorily.
Therefore, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 878) was withdrawn.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the Senator from
Arizona who earlier today, in listing programs in this bill he felt
were inappropriate--I believe he used the word ``pork'' or some other
derogatory reference to those programs--cited a $150,000 proposal in
this bill to build a barn at the John Hay estate in New Hampshire.
I honestly believe the Senator from Arizona has done a disservice to
the people of New Hampshire by citing this item as one of the items on
his list. It appears to me the research on that list may be rather weak
if he is putting on the list items such as this. I want to give the
history of this situation.
The John Hay estate is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. John
Hay was Abraham Lincoln's secretary. He was Theodore Roosevelt's and
William McKinley's Secretary of State. He served for years as a public
servant of extraordinary import in our Nation's history in the latter
part of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century,
playing a major role in a number of very significant events, especially
in the period 1890 to 1905 when he died.
As part of his lifestyle, he was a Renaissance man. He had been, as I
mentioned, secretary to Lincoln and is quite famous for his notes on
Lincoln. In Washington, he started something called the Five of Hearts,
a very famous historical group that met regularly at his home, which is
now the Hay-Adams--Hay-Adams was not actually his home. His home was
where the Hay-Adams is. That is the physical location.
That group involved five people of incredible intellectual capacity,
and they became known as the Five of Hearts. He was part of that group
and his wife was also.
As part of his effort and as part of the culture of that time
actually, he wanted to set up a community which would be a respite from
the hectic life of policy and government, and he chose the shores of
Lake Sunapee in New Hampshire to try to do that. He came to New
Hampshire and purchased a significant amount of land at that time--over
a thousand acres--and an old farm and began to try to attract to that
part of New Hampshire during the summer people who were world leaders
in order to think and relax in what was really a bucolic atmosphere; it
still is. It is a fabulous pastoral setting.
It is a lot like what Saint-Gaudens, who was another significant
person in that period and tremendous artist in our history, had done in
another part of New Hampshire called Cornish.
He built a farmhouse; he took the old farmhouse and renovated it. It
was situated on 1,000 acres. Of course, with any farmhouse there was a
barn, as one might expect in that period. His family has owned that
property for years and years. In the late 1980s, his daughter gave the
property as part of her estate to the U.S. Government because she
[[Page S7562]]
thought it was so important it be preserved as part of history because
it is a truly unique piece of property.
One of the things he did on that property was bring in some
extraordinary plants. In his travels he collected plants of alpine
nature and built an alpine yard which is one of the rarest gardens in
this country and has been designated so by the national garden groups.
He built other gardens around the home. He had Theodore Roosevelt there
and planted trees. There is a Theodore Roosevelt tree which grows
outside the house.
The house itself was architecturally unique and presents a classic
example of a Greek revival farmhouse in the New England tradition which
existed in the late 19th century. But most of those homes have been
lost either through fires or being torn down over the years.
The gift of this property to us, the people of America, by his family
was an extremely generous act. At that time it was given to us, it
involved only 100 acres but over a mile of frontage on the lake.
Frontage on the lake is extremely expensive. The house itself was not
in good repair, and the barn was not, and the gardens were at risk
because the gardener who had been managing them for over 50 years was
getting a little old and decided to give it up.
So as a result of a community effort with over 600 people involved,
called the Friends of John Hay, we restored this home. There has been a
fair amount of Federal dollars committed to trying to restore the home
over the years. Senator Rudman, my predecessor, got the initial funds,
and I have been successful in obtaining funds to restore the home. Why?
Because, of course, it is a Federal property and we have
responsibility. It would be as if we owned the home, and we may well
own the home of Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, for all I know, and are
restoring that home. But it is a Federal responsibility for which we
have responsibility.
More importantly than that, it is a property that had such a magnetic
effect in the region as a truly unique, historical site architecturally
and because of the gardens, that the community around the property has
risen up with great energy, enthusiasm, and support. There are over 600
people who participate now in maintaining the gardens in what is a
voluntarism that is rather significant and instructive and now has the
gardens back to where they should be, as the home is back to where it
should be.
As part of this property, as I mentioned, there was a barn. The barn
was also an architecturally unique building, with unique windows and
unique buttresses inside. But more importantly, as part of the
property, being a traditional New England home, it set the nature of
the property.
This winter, for those who had the good fortune to go to New
Hampshire and ski, we had great snow. We had such great snow, it never
stopped snowing all winter long. Throughout our State and Vermont and
Maine--Vermont does not get as great snow as we get, but they still get
snow--a lot of homes, buildings, schools, in fact, found their roofs
caved in. Regrettably, what happened at the Hay estate was, the barn,
which was a historical barn, had a snow base on it which it could not
maintain, even after 100 years--maybe not 100; maybe 85. Regrettably,
the barn collapsed under the weight of the snow.
I guess it is the position of the Senator from Arizona that when a
building that is on a historical site, which is the responsibility of
the Federal Government to maintain, collapses, we should simply leave
it there: Historical building that collapsed? Just leave it there. I
guess that is the position of the Senator from Arizona.
What these funds were for--$150,000, which is not a great deal of
money when you consider the character and size of the barn--was to
restore the barn, put it back together, put it back up, and hopefully
put in buttresses which will withstand the next major snow, which, of
course, we hope to have again for our skiers.
The fact is, for the Senator from Arizona to come down here and
represent it as somehow pork or inappropriate that the Federal
Government has a responsibility to maintain a historical site of such
significance, which had such huge community involvement when there was
a disaster affecting that site which was the result of an act of God--
by the way, an excessive snow year is pushing the envelope on how you
define what are appropriate expenditures at the Federal level.
I cannot think of anything more appropriate than for the Federal
Government to manage the property that has been given to the people of
this country in a reasonable way. The reasonable thing to do, of
course, is to rebuild the historical barn so the integrity of the
property is maintained.
I believe the Senator from Arizona is misguided on this point. I want
to put that in the Record. I will be happy to invite the Senator from
Arizona on his next trip to New Hampshire, which appears to be
reasonably frequent, to stop by at the Hay estate and see the barn, see
the estate, see the gardens, maybe meet with the 600 people who work
there on a regular basis as volunteers, and ask them whether that barn
is an important part of that estate and whether the Federal Government
has a responsibility to at least rebuild the barn when the people are
volunteering literally thousands of hours to maintain the estate for
free. I look forward to the Senator stopping by at the John Hay estate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the Presiding Officer a
good afternoon and hopefully a short one.
It was my understanding there was a distinct possibility with the
upcoming expiration of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which expires
in August, a renewal of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act might be
offered as an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. If that
had been the case, I was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment to
the ILSA renewal with respect to our energy dependence on Iraq. I have
an amendment at the desk that would do just that.
I will not call up that amendment at this time, but I would like to
alert my colleagues of the significance of what is going on with regard
to Iraq. I think the occupant and other Members are aware of the Smith-
Schumer letter which addresses the ILSA issue by extending for 5 years
the moratorium on trade with both Iran and Libya.
The important thing to note is the 71 signatures in favor of
extending that moratorium. As we know, it takes a 50-vote point of
order to waive rule XVI, which is legislation on appropriations. I am
not going to violate that.
We have a great inconsistency here. I have been coming to the floor
for a long time talking about energy policies. I am referring today, of
course, to our continuing dependence on petroleum from Iraq. We import
somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq every
day. That is about $6 billion worth in the last year.
Let me share with the Presiding Officer what the curve is relative to
the increase in our oil imports from Iraq to the United States. It
started in 1997 and has had its ups and downs. In 1998 we had a
takeoff, and we are currently importing somewhere in the area of
700,000 barrels a day.
We had an interesting occurrence about 6 weeks ago where Iraq was
unhappy with its treatment by the U.N. and made a decision to reduce
its production by 2.5 million barrels a day for a month. That took 60
million barrels a day off the market.
Now, there were many in this body who thought OPEC would simply
increase their production and offset that. That was not the case. OPEC
simply decided to wait 30 days. As a consequence, the 30 days have
passed, and Saddam Hussein did not get what he wanted from the U.N.,
but he did turn back his production level.
As a consequence, I think it is important to recognize what is
happening with regard to Iraq. Many people forget we had a war over
there in 1990 and 1991. That war cost us some 148 American lives. We
had 400-some wounded. We had several taken prisoner. We were
successful. The purpose of the war was very simple, it was to keep
Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait and going on into Saudi Arabia and
basically controlling the world's supply of oil. Make no mistake about
it, that was a real war.
The consequences of that are rather interesting to reflect on now. If
we look at the situation with regard to our friend, Saddam Hussein, we
find American families are now going to
[[Page S7563]]
Saddam Hussein for energy. Iraq is the fastest growing U.S. source of
oil imports: Again, 750,000 from Iraq; about 2.3 million from the
Persian Gulf countries; the OPEC countries, about 5 million barrels a
day.
I am not going to stop there because I think that is where the issue
is kind of left in the minds of many Americans. But let's think about
realities. Since the gulf war, we have enforced an aerial blockade.
Perhaps some of my colleagues could share with me the difference
between an aerial blockade and a surface blockade. A surface blockade
with the Navy is generally considered an act of war. We have been
enforcing this no-fly zone. We call it a no-fly zone, but it is really
an aerial blockade. We have flown nearly 250,000 individual sorties,
flights, over Iraq, enforcing this aerial blockade. We have done it to
prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening our allies in the region.
We are spending billions of dollars to keep Saddam Hussein in check.
What are we doing with the oil? We take his oil, we fill up our
airplanes, and send our pilots to fly over Iraq. They are shot at by
Iraqi artillery. Then they return, fill up on Iraqi oil, and do it
again.
I find that discomforting, to say the least. I am indignant. It is
unacceptable. I could use many adjectives. But Saddam Hussein is
heating our homes in the winter, getting our kids ready for school each
day, getting our food from the farm to the table, and we pay him pretty
well to do that.
Let me refer to what is happening as a consequence of this. I will
get back to this chart a little later. We can view it with some
reflection because it represents a very significant trend.
Let's talk about what Saddam Hussein does with the money we pay him.
He pays his Republican Guards to keep him alive; he supports
international terrorist activities--we are aware of that; he funds his
military campaign against American interests, American service men and
women and our allies; and he is desperately trying to shoot one of our
aircraft down.
When that happens, if it happens, God forbid, I don't know what the
reaction is going to be. But I know what my personal reaction is. This
risk has been evident to the American people and the American Congress.
We have condoned it. We have not done anything about it. Why not?
The inconsistency, of course, is we are proposing to extend our
sanctions on Iran and Libya for another five years. We have not
imported a drop of oil from Iran in 20 years. I am not suggesting we
should. But we do not even mention Iraq.
In addition to paying his Republican Guards, supporting international
terrorists, he builds an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction with
biological capability. Who does he threaten? He threatens our ally,
Israel. As a matter of fact, he ends virtually every speech with,
``Death to Israel.''
I don't know how more pointed I could get. Maybe I am missing
something in this. Is this good policy? For a number of years the
United States has worked closely with the United Nations on the Oil For
Food Program. The program allows Iraq to export petroleum in exchange
for funds which can be used for food, medicine, and other humanitarian
products. But despite more than $15 billion available for those
purposes, Iraq has only spent a fraction of that money for the needs of
the Iraqi people. Instead, the Iraqi Government spends it on missile
capability, defensive and offensive capability, a highly trained
military. One has to wonder why, when billions of dollars are available
to care for the people of Iraq; many of whom are malnourished, many of
whom are sick, many of whom have inadequate medical care; why would
Saddam Hussein withhold the money available and choose, instead, to
blame the United States for the plight of his people? Why is Iraq
reducing the amount they spend on nutrition and prenatal care? Why are
they reducing that amount when millions of dollars are available? Why
does $200 million of medicine from the U.N. sit undistributed in Iraqi
warehouses? Why, given the urgent state of humanitarian conditions in
Iraq, does Saddam Hussein insist that his country's highest priority is
the development of sophisticated telecommunications and transportation
infrastructure? Why, if there are billions available and his people are
starving, is Iraq only buying about $8 million in agricultural products
from the United States?
I do not have any quarrel with the Oil For Food Program. It is well
intentioned. I do have a problem with the means with which Saddam
Hussein has manipulated our growing dependency on Iraqi oil.
Three times since the beginning of the Oil For Food Program Saddam
Hussein has threatened, or actually halted, oil production, as I
indicated, disrupting energy markets, sending world prices
skyrocketing. Why did he do this? I guess he wants to send a message to
the United States. The message might be: I have leverage over you.
Every time I look at this chart I look at the increased leverage
associated with Saddam Hussein and OPEC and the cartel. We do not have
cartels in this country. We cannot. We have antitrust laws against it.
But we are feeding this cartel with our appetite for crude oil.
The harsh reality is, as much as we would like to relieve our
dependence on oil with alternative energies--we have alternative
sources of energy. We have coal, we have natural gas, we have hydro, we
have nuclear, but you do not move America or the world on that kind of
energy. You move America and the world on oil. We do not have a
substitute for that. We do not have anything realistic to replace it.
We are going to become more dependent unless we address the
alternative and that is to reduce our dependence here at home by
conservation and opening up new sources where we are likely to find a
significant volume of oil.
One of the things in my energy bill as a specific goal and target is
to reduce the dependence on imports of oil to less than 50 percent by
2010. You can do it in one fell swoop if, indeed, the oil in ANWR is
what it purports to be, somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion
barrels a day. The question is, Can you do it safely; and the answer is
clearly yes.
There is one other thing I would like to mention that has not gone
into the ANWR argument to any extent. That is the interests of the
residents of the area. That particular issue involved 95,000 acres of
land that are in ANWR, up here at this very top of the world, in this
area, Kaktovik--these Natives have 95,000 acres of land. I have a chart
that shows the Native ownership. But the Native ownership is basically
such that it has no access to the existing pipeline. It has no access
from the standpoint of producing, even for the villagers there, the gas
that is in the village site for use by the villagers. They are simply
precluded.
We use the term ``corked'' in Alaska. Corked means that when you are
out fishing and you have your net the way fish are swimming, somebody
takes their net and goes in front of you.
That is just what has happened up here with our Native people. The
Native people have 95,000 acres of private land. They are precluded
from recovering even their own natural gas for development and usage.
That is wrong.
As we look at reality, and as we look at our increased dependence on
imports, by the votes we have seen here, whether it is on lease sale
181 or some of the issues relative to our national monuments, we had
better come to grips with reality. Where are these deposits going to
come from if they do not come from areas that are still open?
This is a chart that shows the areas that are closed. The west coast
and the east coast are off limits. Take lease sale 181. Three-quarters
of that is off limits. The entire overthrust belt is off limits as a
consequence of actions by the last administration.
I make this point simply to highlight the reality. Here we are
talking about extending moratoriums against Iran and against Libya with
no mention of Iraq. We have placed our energy security in the hands of
a madman, Saddam Hussein.
The administration has attempted valiantly to reconstruct a sensible
multilateral policy towards Iraq. Those attempts, unfortunately, have
not been successful. We are still dependent on foreign imports, and a
significant portion is coming from Iraq.
I think before we can construct a sensible United States policy
towards Iraq, we need to end the blatant inconsistency between our
energy policy and
[[Page S7564]]
our foreign policy. We need to end our addiction to Iraqi oil. We need
to basically go cold turkey. To that end, in a moment I will introduce
legislation which would prohibit oil imports from Iraq, whether or not
under the Oil for Food Program, until it is no longer inconsistent with
our national security to resume these imports. I hope that this will be
an initial step toward a more rational and coherent policy towards
Iraq.
As a consequence, I am withdrawing my amendment at the desk. I trust
my colleagues have picked up to some extent the points I have brought
out.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute as if in morning
business to introduce my bill. Then I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S.
1170 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think we are at a stage in the debate
on the bill that I can now say we have completed all of our work.
I compliment the chairman and the ranking member for their
extraordinary work in the last couple of days in getting us to this
point. Let me also thank Senator Gramm of Texas for his work in the
last couple of hours in working with Senator Byrd on a concern of great
import to Senator Byrd.
There has been no request for a rollcall vote on final passage. I am
now in a position to announce that there will be no more rollcall votes
tonight.
There are no rollcall votes scheduled for tomorrow, nor will there be
votes on Monday.
My hope is that we will be able to move to the energy and water
appropriations bill on Monday for debate only, and then we will move
into debate on amendments beginning as early as Tuesday. I hope
Senators will file their amendments and will be prepared to offer them
even though we will not have votes on Monday. I encourage them to do
that.
I am hopeful we can get at least two appropriations bills done, if
not more, next week.
We have a lot of work to do. But there are no more votes tonight. As
promised, I have also made a commitment that a number of nominations--
if I recall, something on the order of 20 nominations--will be offered
shortly. We are about ready to do that. There is at least one that will
be the subject of some discussion. But I know of no requests for
rollcalls on those nominations. No more rollcall votes tonight.
We will begin work on Monday, hopefully, on energy and water.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Madam 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.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to offer
a few observations as we are closing up this Interior appropriations
bill. I must thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for his work
as chairman of this committee. His staff has been remarkable. They are
easy to work with, and they have accommodated, I think, as many people
in this body as they possibly could.
Peter Kiefhaber has done a commendable job in his first year as the
clerk for the majority. His willingness to work with my staff has
ensured that this bill has reached its bipartisan form. He has been
assisted by a number of very capable staff members, including Ginny
James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Brooke Livingston, and a detailee from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Scott Dalzell.
On my side of the ring, I thank my staff members who work with me on
the minority side.
Bruce Evans lent his expertise after spending numerous years as the
majority clerk under the very able chairmanship of Senator Slade Gorton
of Washington. I have a lot more respect for the former Senator from
Washington and the work he did because this is my first year on
Interior appropriations. I personally thank Bruce for continuing his
service in the Senate and helping me through my first year as chairman
and then ranking member on this bill.
I also thank Christine Drager for her assistance on a number of
extremely difficult accounts, as well as Ryan Thomas, who moved from my
personal office to the Appropriations Committee to lend a helping hand
in crafting this legislation.
While I am thanking those who have helped in the formation of this
legislation, I want to single out Mark Davis. Mark has joined my office
as a congressional fellow from the U.S. Forest Service. I want my
colleagues to know that it was Mark's efforts that ensured we received
all of your requests, and all the requests were considered. He sifted
through the request letters, organized your request lists, and tracked
your staff down to make sure we had the information necessary to help
us meet the desires of each Member and make some very tough decisions.
I thank him for his service.
Madam President, this has been somewhat of a difficult process. We
were not able to fully meet the desires of every Member who offered an
amendment to this bill. However, the chairman and I have attempted to
remain fair while avoiding adding legislative riders that would slow
the progress of this bill.
It is imperative that this bill be moved through Congress and be sent
to the President as soon as possible. It is now mid-July and we have a
lot of work ahead of us.
Again, I thank my chairman, Senator Byrd of West Virginia. I could
not have asked for a better chairman as I enter the first year working
on Interior appropriations. I thank him very much for his patience
because he helped me through some of the rough spots. I thank him for
that.
I yield the floor, and 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.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I express my heartfelt gratitude to my
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Montana, who is the ranking
member on the subcommittee of the Department of the Interior.
I thank him for his very able representation of his people. I thank
him for the consideration he has accorded to all other Senators as we
have developed this bill, brought it to the floor and managed it
together. I thank him for his equanimity, his very friendly and
accommodating spirit. I thank him for being Conrad Burns. I thank him
for the contribution he has made in the development of this bill in
working with me as we have attempted to manage the bill and bring it to
a conclusion.
I thank our respective staffs on both sides of the aisle for their
courtesies to us and to our colleagues. I thank our colleagues for
their cooperation and understanding. I thank the leaders on both sides
for the assistance they have given to us. I particularly thank our
Democratic whip.
I believe that Members will remember my taking the floor on many
occasions to speak on the theme that the dog is man's best friend.
Harry Truman said, ``If you want a friend in Washington, you better go
buy a dog.'' Well, I believe that. Members often hear me extol the
virtues of the dog. Not only can we say that a dog is man's great
friend, but for those of us who have to manage bills on the floor, it
has been my experience that the majority whip is the best friend that a
manager of a bill can have.
I have seen a goodly number of whips in my time on the Senate floor.
The Office of Whip goes back a long way, into
[[Page S7565]]
the 1600s, as a matter of fact, when it was said in the British
Parliament that the whipper-in--the individual who kept the hounds from
straying from the field during the fox chase. In those days, whips were
sent in the form of circular letters to members of the opposition,
members of the King's party to northern England, and sent as far away
as Paris, France, to tell members to come in on a certain day and be
prepared to vote on a certain matter. That was the whip's job.
The whip's position here has grown into an institution. During the
early 1900s, during the first quarter of the 20th century, the offices
known as majority whip, majority leader, minority leader, minority whip
came into being. They are not constitutional offices, but these are
offices that have been developed over the years.
The whip system in the House is much more refined and more highly
developed than it is in the Senate, not quite so highly developed as it
is in the British Parliament. In our body, we do not have the whip
system they have in the House, but we have an extraordinarily good whip
in Harry Reid from Nevada.
I was what I consider a good whip here for a good many years. I
served with Mike Mansfield when he was majority leader. I was the
majority whip, and I sat on the floor all the time. I never left the
floor but a few minutes at a time. This whip, Harry Reid, performs that
same function. He is on the floor. He is helping Senators with their
needs. He is helping the managers of the bills to arrive at agreements.
He is helping the managers of the bills to reach time agreements on
amendments once they have been offered. He does an extraordinarily good
job.
I express those compliments concerning Harry Reid. I think he is a
better whip than Robert Byrd was. He has more patience than Robert Byrd
had. I would say he has more political gumption than Robert Byrd
probably had. He is a great whip. I salute him.
I have no hesitancy at all in saying if somebody does a better job
than I can do, I salute them for it. He does an excellent job. I thank
him.
He helped me and Senator Stevens on the supplemental bill. He has
helped Senator Burns and myself on this bill. I thank him again.
Madam President, we will be going to conference next week on this
bill, and Senator Conrad Burns and I will, again, stand shoulder to
shoulder with the other members of our team on both sides of the aisle,
and we will be working with the House Members in an effort to bring
from the conference a bill the President will sign into law.
I merely wanted to express those few compliments, those few
expressions of gratitude, and to say I am very glad that the Senate has
reached the point now of finalizing the action on this bill prior to it
being sent to conference.
The Senate has now approved the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental
appropriations bill and the first fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill,
the fiscal year 2002 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill.
We have scheduled nine bills for action in the Senate Appropriations
Committee during July and we hope to have Senate action on those bills
before the August recess.
We have a long tradition on the Senate Appropriations Committee of
working together on a bipartisan basis to produce fiscally responsible
and balanced appropriations bills. Working together with my
distinguished colleague and good friend Ted Stevens, we have gotten off
to a good start this year.
The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill passed the
Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 98-1. It totaled $6.5 billion, not one
thin dime over the President's request. It is a balanced bill that
approved most of the President's request for defense and included a
number of other priority programs such as funding for Education for the
Disadvantaged, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the
Global AIDS program. It included no emergency funding. All unrequested
items were fully offset so that we remain under the statutory cap on
spending for fiscal year 2001.
Today, we have approved the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations
bill by a voice vote. We have exercised discipline. The budget
resolution sets very tight limits on overall discretionary spending.
And this bill stays within the 302(b) allocation that the
Appropriations Committee approved pursuant to the budget resolution.
In both bills we held the line. We stayed within our budgetary
boundaries. We took a deep breath and were able to squeeze in between
those narrow walls. But the walls are getting tighter. We have been
given a difficult task. Much has been asked of us; a tremendous amount
is expected when it comes to providing for the national need.
We are attempting to conduct the people's business--to pass the
thirteen bills that fund government in a timely fashion. The clock is
ticking. We hope to go to conference soon so that this bill can be sent
to the President before the August recess.
The House and Senate Budget Committee are now projecting that we will
be dipping into the Medicare surplus in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
year 2002 and that this trend is likely to continue for several years.
This is taking place before a single appropriations bill has been sent
to the President.
I believe that this change in our budget outlook will result in very
tight limits on discretionary spending over the next few years. I don't
like it, it won't be good for America, but it is a reality. As we
consider the fiscal year 2002 bills, it will be very important that we
understand the long term consequences of our actions. We should not be
taking actions this year that will lock us into long term costs. We
have a long tradition on this committee for working together on a
bipartisan basis to produce responsible bills, one year at a time.
There will be a strong temptation to approve provisions this year
that will mandate costs for specific programs in future years. We
simply can not go down that road when we know that we are facing tight
spending limits over the next few years.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the pendency of
H.R. 2217, the managers be permitted to offer a managers' amendment;
that once the amendment is reported, it be considered agreed to and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any amendments laid
aside be modified and agreed to, as modified; that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table; that no further amendments be in
order; that the bill be advanced to third reading; that the Senate
proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action; that
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House
of Representatives, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I again thank Senator Byrd for his
leadership on this legislation. We set a record for an Interior
appropriations bill due to the chairman's leadership. Two days is about
as fast as we have done an Interior appropriations bill. That is a
great credit to his leadership. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any
statements by Senators in connection with the bill be printed in the
Record as though spoken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--NOMINATION OF J. STEVEN GRILES
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the vote on final passage of H.R. 2217, the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the nomination of J. Steven Griles to be
Deputy Secretary of the Interior; that the Senate immediately vote on
the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action; that
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action; that there then be a
period for debate regarding the nomination; and that following that
debate, the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent that the agreement be
[[Page S7566]]
modified to reflect that the vote occur on the nominee following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for no more than 2 minutes
following the comments of the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. REID. I say under my own consent request, it is likely that the
junior Senator from Florida will also want to speak. He has indicated
that when we take our voice vote, he wants to be one of those known as
having voted no. So I reserve some time for him, too, if he desires to
come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 976
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the managers' amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and
Mr. Burns, proposes an amendment numbered 976.
(The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 976) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all the pending
amendments are agreed to.
The amendment (No. 880) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 975), as modified, as agreed to, as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION TO STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 101 of the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51; 15 U.S.C. 1841
note) is amended as follows:
(1) Terms and conditions.--Subsection (h) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2015''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Guarantee level.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), any loan guarantee provided under this section shall
not exceed 85 percent of the amount of principal of the loan.
``(B) Increased level one.--A loan guarantee may be
provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not
more than 90 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan,
if--
``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time
does not exceed $100,000,000; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.
``(C) Increased level two.--A loan guarantee may be
provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not
more than 95 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan,
if--
``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time
does not exceed $100,000,000; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such
percentage under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.''.
(2) Termination of guarantee authority.--Subsection (k) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply only with respect to any guarantee issued on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third
reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
indian health services
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention
of the Senate the critical shortfall in Indian Health Service funding.
The Indian Health Service is unable to provide basic health services to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We are failing to uphold a promise
we made many years ago in federal-tribal treaties as well as federal
statute.
The Indian Health Service is tasked with providing full health
insurance for American Indians and Alaska Natives, but is so
underfunded that patients are routinely denied care that most of us
take for granted and, in many cases, call essential. The budget for
clinical services is so inadequate that Indian patients are subjected
to a ``life or limb'' test. Unless their condition is life-threatening
or they risk losing a limb, their treatment is deferred for higher
priority cases; by the time they become a priority, there are often no
funds left to pay for the treatment.
I attempted to address this crisis by offering an amendment to the
fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. The amendment called for a $4.2
billion increase for the clinical services budget of the Indian Health
Service. Seven of my colleagues cosponsored this amendment, which
passed the Senate, but was not included in the bill that returned from
conference.
I again attempted to address this situation in the Interior
Appropriations bill, but it appears that we will be unable to do that
at this time due to the inadequate budget allocation facing the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I would like to engage in a
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee on how we might address this situation in conference and
advance the goal of living up to our commitment to provide essential
health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am happy to address that issue with the
majority leader. Can the leader tell me what would be required to offer
the basic health services we promised to American Indians and Alaska
Natives?
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have estimates of the funding that
would be required to provide basic clinical services to American
Indians and Alaska Natives. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget
requests $1.8 billion for Indian Health Service clinical services.
While this is an increase over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, it
will not allow the Indian Health Service to meet the basic level of
health needs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. For many years
now, appropriations for the Indian Health Service have not even kept
pace with medical inflation or population growth. The per capita
spending on health care for each Indian Health Service beneficiary is
only one-third of what is spent per capita for the general U.S.
population. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Indian
Health Service produce a tribal needs-based budget that calculates the
true cost of meeting the health needs of Native Americans. According to
these estimates, a $4.2 billion increase in the 2002 budget is required
to meet the most basic health care needs.
The impact of serious, chronic under-funding of the Indian Health
Service is immense. The disparities in health outcomes between American
Indians and Alaska Natives as compared to other Americans is appalling.
Infant mortality is just one example. An American Indian baby is 50
percent more likely to die before the age of one than a Caucasian baby.
In some counties of my state, the infant mortality rate is 33.6 per
1,000, more than 5 times the Caucasian rate. The same disparities exist
for diabetes, tuberculosis, alcoholism, liver disease, and fetal
alcohol syndrome, all of which plague America's native communities at
rates far above the incidence for other Americans. Sadly, the mortality
rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives is higher than for all
races in the United States; life expectancy is the lowest.
I know the distinguished chairman is concerned about these
conditions, and I know that his efforts to increase Indian Health
Service funding have been undermined by an inadequate budget allocation
for this subcommittee. I certainly appreciate the severe constraints on
the Appropriations Committee, particularly in light of the tax cut
legislation recently enacted and the budget reestimates that indicate
the projected budget surpluses are
[[Page S7567]]
dwindling. Still, I hold out hope that, as he and the other conferees
negotiate with our colleagues in the House, they can find some way to
provide additional funding for the clinical services budget of the
Indian Health Service. I would not make this request unless I were
truly convinced that we have fallen far short on our commitment to
provide health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I assure the majority leader of my
commitment to that effort. While we certainly will not be able to
address all of the funding shortfall this year, I, too, am hopeful that
we can find additional funds in conference to begin to address that
shortfall.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am concerned that there are members
of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians who are currently not
allowed to be provided with health care services under the Indian
Health Services Contract Health Services program. It is my
understanding that there is a procedure which would allow the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to include the approximately 300
tribal members who reside in Ripley, TN, within their authorized
service area.
The Ripley community lacks the most basic health services. There are
no resources for preventive health education and no access to either
Indian Health Services or tribally operated facilities.
The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has demonstrated a commitment
to these tribal members by providing updated housing and other
infrastructure and services. The tribe is currently constructing an
appropriate health care facility at the Ripley Community. However, it
is concerned that it does not yet have the authorization from Indian
Health Services to provide those services.
I am sensitive to the constraints in the Interior Appropriations
bill, which did not allow an increase in the Contract Services Program.
I am hopeful that we can work with our colleagues from the House of
Representatives in the conference for this bill to find additional
funds for this program, to increase the likelihood that tribal members,
no matter where they live, will be able to have access to the health
services their tribe can offer.
Regardless of the funding situation, I hope that the Indian Health
Services officials here in Washington, D.C., will review this situation
and work closely with Chief Phillip Martin, the tribal council, and
other officials of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to expand
its Contract Health Services area.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Mississippi has my assurance that I will
support his effort to assist the tribe in his State. I encourage the
Director of Indian Health Services to pay particular attention to the
request of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to serve its tribal
members in Ripley, TN.
Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, my colleague from Maine and I would like
to engage the subcommittee chairman and ranking member if we may.
Mr. BYRD. Please proceed.
Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my colleagues from West Virginia and
Montana for the support they have provided in their bill for Atlantic
salmon conservation and restoration efforts in our State. I appreciate
their fully funding the administration's request for $597,000 in the
Fish and Wildlife Management Account as well as their willingness to
make $1.1 million available to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to carry out a competitively awarded grant program to fund
on-the-ground recovery efforts for Maine's Atlantic salmon.
Ms. SNOWE. I also want to thank my colleagues for their support for
Atlantic salmon recovery. As the Senators know, the fiscal year 2001
Interior appropriations bill provided the funding to establish the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic salmon grant program.
The program, which has leveraged an even greater amount of non-federal
money, has been extremely successful at identifying and supporting
innovative projects that will help with the recovery effort.
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Maine and
commend them for the hard work they have done to secure resources to
help with the Atlantic salmon recovery efforts in their State.
Ms. COLLINS. In reporting its bill, the subcommittee originally
provided $500,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's
Atlantic salmon grant program. It is my understanding that, in
increasing funding for the program to $1.1 million, the subcommittee
continues to meet the administration's request for $597,000 in funding
for Atlantic salmon recovery efforts through the Fish and Wildlife
Management Account.
Mr. BURNS. The Senator from Maine is correct. The subcommittee
recommended an increase of $7,380,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
above the administration's request for this account. Of the $7,380,000,
$600,000 has been reallocated as part of the manager's amendment to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's General Administration Account for the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic salmon grant program,
bringing the total provided by the bill for this program to $1.1
million.
Ms. SNOWE. The money that was provided last year has been utilized to
engage a wide range of stakeholders, including local community groups
as well as aquaculture, agriculture, and forestry companies in
cooperative restoration efforts. They have worked hard to aid the
rebuilding process. It is a reflection of the strong commitment of
everyone in Maine that we have far more projects being proposed than
funding to accommodate them all. I can assure you that the money you
are providing today will make a significant impact. I thank the
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for their courtesy and
continued support.
Ms. COLLINS. I also thank the Senators from West Virginia and
Montana, and I look forward to continuing to work with them and the
senior Senator from Maine to ensure that resources are available to
assist in Atlantic salmon recovery efforts.
funding for the urban parks and recreation recovery fund
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to
clarify that it is the intent to seek additional funding for the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Fund, UPARR, when the Senate Interior
appropriations bill goes to conference.
UPARR plays a vital role in supporting the last remaining green
spaces in some of our most congested urban areas. This program takes a
relatively small amount of federal funds and leverages them to make a
substantial contribution to the development and improvement of our
nation's urban parks, playgrounds, and recreational areas. For many of
my constituents, these small pockets of open space are a vital part of
their community. They serve as playgrounds for children, meeting places
for adults, and areas for fun, recreation, and respite from the daily
hustle and bustle of our Nation's most economically and socially
stressed neighborhoods.
I was pleased to see that the House included $30 million for this
important program in its fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill.
This amount includes a slight increase over last year's funding levels
and is consistent with the commitment made to this program last year in
title VIII of the Interior appropriations bill.
I was disappointed, however, that the Senate bill did not match this
funding level. I realize that this lower level of funding for UPARR is
related to the lower overall level of funding in the Senate bill. When
the bill gets to conference with the House, I hope we can accept the
House level. Is that the chairman's intent?
Mr. BYRD. I agree with my distinguished colleague from California
that UPARR is a worthy program. If additional funds become available in
conference, I shall be glad to consider a higher level of funding for
UPARR.
sewall-belmont house
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues
Senator Byrd and Senator Burns to work with me in conference on the
Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the Interior Department
provides funding for an important Capitol Hill landmark, the Sewall-
Belmont House.
The Sewall-Belmont House has been a center of political life in
Washington for more than 200 years. It was the home of Treasury
Secretary Albert Gallatin from 1801 to 1813 and the only site in
Washington to offer armed resistance when British troops invaded
[[Page S7568]]
the city in August 1814. The building later became a beacon of liberty
for American women in the 20th century as the headquarters of the
historic National Woman's Party and home of the suffragist leader,
Alice Paul.
Congress provided $500,000 last year to begin much needed site
preservation work at the Sewall-Belmont House. Funds will be needed
this year to continue construction and ensure that this home remains a
national treasure.
Recognition of the Sewall-Belmont House as a nationally significant
heritage site has dramatically increased as a result of this
preservation effort. Visitorship is steadily increasing, and the
National Trust for Historic Preservation recently called the Sewall-
Belmont House ``the most significant unrestored women's history site in
the country.'' Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues to
ensure funding for the continued preservation of Sewall-Belmont House.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my colleague and share her
commitment to preserving Sewall-Belmont House. As my distinguished
colleague from Texas is undoubtedly aware, it will be difficult to
address the funding needs of all the worthy requests before us.
Nevertheless, I look forward to working with her in conference to
address the funding needs of this unique historic site.
auxiliary power units and portable power in the DOE transportation fuel
cell program
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, fuel cells, a family of technologies
that produce energy electochemically, without combustion, are being
developed for a exciting variety of applications. Some of these
applications were not contemplated in 1992 when Congress authorized the
Office of Transportation Technologies to support development in a
variety of product areas. To its credit, the department has attempted
to keep pace and to provide the most meaningful support possible to the
research, development and demonstration of fuel cells.
My purpose today is to clarify the Senate's interest in two
applications, auxiliary power units for motor vehicles and portable
power. Auxiliary power units promise a substantial improvement in
energy efficiency of vehicles of all types and may reach commercial
readiness before complete fuel cell engine systems for vehicles. APU's
might also encourage the development of fuel infrastructure and
encourage consumer acceptance, readying the marketplace for fuel cell
vehicles.
Successful development of fuel cell portable power units will also
accelerate consumer understanding and market acceptance. The
manufacture of portable power units would yield important experience in
manufacturing technology and the increased production volumes would
have a direct benefit in reducing the cost of fuel cell engines and
systems for vehicles.
Is it the understanding of the distinguished chairman that these
applications fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of
Transportation Technology?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. The committee recognizes that vehicle auxiliary power
units and portable power systems may be early commercial uses of fuel
cells that would also develop infrastructure and experience needed for
fuel cell vehicles, and considers these applications to be within the
scope of the Office of Transportation Technologies fuel cell program.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
Ohio Water Projects
Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with
Appropriations Chairman Byrd and the ranking member of Interior
Appropriations, Senator Burns. I want to briefly discuss with my
honorable colleagues an important conservation and recreation project
that is of great interest to me and request their favorable
consideration of $5 million for this project in the fiscal year 2002
Interior appropriations bill.
Madam President, a few miles west of Ohio's State capital of Columbus
flow two outstanding waterways: the Big and Little Darby Creeks. These
two creeks are recognized as State and National Scenic Rivers for their
crystal clear water, their abundance of wildlife, and their importance
to many Ohioans as a source of high quality outdoor recreation. The
Nature Conservancy has even listed these watersheds as one of the
``Last Great Places'' in the Western Hemisphere. On more than one
occasion, I have had the pleasure of visiting these two creeks. As a
matter of fact, Mr. President, I spent a wonderful day canoeing on the
Big Darby Creek earlier this week with two of my children.
Since 1959, the Franklin County Metro Parks have been purchasing land
from willing sellers along these two creeks as part of their Battelle-
Darby Creek Metro Park. The Park currently offers several recreational
opportunities including a Streamside Classroom Education Program, a 1.6
mile walking trail, and several canoe access sites. In addition to
welcoming the thousands of visitors the park receives each year, the
park's dedicated and highly trained staff are conducting important
wetland and prairie restoration programs in the area. At this time,
there are several potential purchases that could substantially expand
the park and ensure the protection of the creek and increase public
access opportunities. I have urged my colleagues on the Interior
Appropriations Committee to provide funding for these purchases.
I have discussed my interest in providing financial support for
further expansion of the park with Senators Byrd and Burns and I
appreciate their willingness to enter into this colloquy. I also
appreciate their interest in exploring funding opportunities for this
project through the fiscal year 2002 Interior appopriations bill.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have had the opportunity to discuss this
project with Senator DeWine, and I rise today to assure him that I
appreciate and understand his interest in this important project and
will give it serious consideration during further consideration of the
fiscal year 1902 Interior appropriations bill.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I too have had the opportunity to discuss
this project with my friend from Ohio. I share Senator Byrd's interest
in examining potential funding opportunities to support this project.
Wolf Recovery Program
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise to commend Mr. Byrd and Mr. Burns
on their leadership and hard work on this bill. The subcommittee has
had to make hard decisions about scarce resources and has labored to do
so fairly. They have made real efforts to make sure the taxpayer's
dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. I have seen first-hand,
and appreciate, their dedication to the integrity of this process.
Would the distinguished gentlemen form West Virginia and Montana
engage in a colloquy with me concerning the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery
Program for the nonexperimental population of gray wolves?
Mr. BYRD. I would be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.
Mr. BURNS. As this program also affects my State, I too would be
pleased to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. CRAIG. While I wish gray wolves did not reside in my State, they
do, and they are not going away. Thus, I believe the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service must be pro-active and aggressive in addressing issues
related to the monitoring of the wolf population and working with the
affected States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to delist the
population. The wolf population in Central Idaho is growing by leaps
and bounds. As a result, permittees are faced with growing livestock-
wolf conflicts. In addition, private property rights are infringed as
these conflicts occur on private property. Yet the permittee must have
a Federal permit to address conflict issues on their own land. Last, as
the population grows, management efforts have not increased at the same
rate. I feel that these individuals should not be punished because the
wolves were re-introduced into central Idaho.
The subcommittee has worked to secure an additional $200,000 for the
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Program. I fee this additional money should
be used to increase monitoring efforts and increase communication with
potentially affected permittees, as well as, to focus efforts on
defining and meeting criteria for delisting the wolves in central
Idaho. I believe these funds should work to provide Idaho with
flexibility in managing the wolf population to meet the needs of those
most affected by the wolves.
Mr. BYRD. I will work with Mr. Craig to see that these funds are used
for monitoring of the central Idaho wolf population.
[[Page S7569]]
Mr. BURNS. I agree with the gentleman from Idaho, these funds should
be used to provide flexibility in managing the wolf population of
central Idaho.
Judicial Training in the Pacific Islands
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I would like to discuss with my
distinguished colleagues, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
and the ranking member on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the
need for judicial training in the Pacific Islands.
I have been working over the past year with the judges of the ninth
circuit, the circuit charged with overseeing the judiciary in the
Pacific Islands, to help them secure the funds to conduct a needs
assessment for the training of judges in the United States territories
and Freely Associated States in the Pacific. That assessment has been
completed, and has identified the need for more training programs for
nonlawyer and legally trained judges.
The judges of the ninth circuit have worked with the National
Judicial College to design two separate one-year training programs for
judges in the Pacific Islands. One is aimed at nonlawyer judges, and
would be conducted in Pohnpei, the capital of the Federated States of
Micronesia, in order to be the most cost effective. The second program
would be conducted in the United States, and would be geared toward
chief justices or presiding judges.
These training programs are necessary to help Pacific Islands facing
burgeoning populations and judicial systems that are not fully
developed. The need for further training of these judges has long been
recognized by the ninth circuit. This program has the full support of
the judiciaries in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
If we are to expect these areas to be able fully and effectively
enforce applicable laws, including traditional laws, then we must
ensure that the persons who serve in the local judiciaries are fully
trained. Of all the technical assistance programs that we provide to
improve the operations of government, this particular program has the
greatest potential for improving society and the quality of life in
these islands.
The cost of this 1-year program would only be approximately $100,000.
I ask my colleagues' support in encouraging the Secretary of the
Interior to support this effort.
Mr. BYRD. I support the training of these judges and would be pleased
to encourage the Secretary to support this effort as well.
Mr. BURNS. I, too, support such an allocation by the Secretary.
don edwards national wildlife refuge
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to join the chairman and
ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee to discuss an issue
important to the State of California. That is the continuing funding
for the acquisition of San Francisco baylands adjacent to the Don
Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
Since the early 1900s, more than 90 percent of California's interior
wetlands have been lost to development and other land use changes. The
property for purchase constitutes more than 13,000 acres of salt ponds
at the edge of San Francisco Bay, which itself provides important
habitat for more than 1 million birds per year. This purchase will
increase the bay's wetland area by 50 percent.
Mr. BYRD. I am familiar with this project. As I understand it, the
owner of the land is asking for $300 million in Federal and State funds
for the 13,000 acres. While, this may be a worthwhile endeavor, I
question whether it will be possible to allocate such a large sum.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I understand the chairman's concern about the level
of funding required to complete this purchase. I share his concern. I
am personally working with all parties involved in the agreement in an
effort to substantially reduce the federal share of the purchase price.
I am concerned, however, that by providing no funding in the fiscal
year 2002 Interior appropriations bill, the seller will be forced to
seek other buyers. This would be a lost opportunity of historic
proportions. It would be my intention to secure a small amount of
funding in the Senate bill to keep the project alive as we move forward
in appropriations process with the goal of increasing the project's
appropriation should a more realistic price be negotiated.
Mr. BURNS. As the Senator from California knows, funding for the Fish
and Wildlife Land acquisition account has already reached its cap and
any new funding would have to be offset from within the account.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am aware of the problem raised by the ranking
member. To this end, I am willing to reduce funding for two California
land acquisition projects--the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and
the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge--by $250,000 each. I want to
be very clear--I fully support these projects. In fact, they were
included in the bill at my request. I intend to see that they are fully
funded by the end of this process. However, due to the procedural
necessity of providing an offset, the only way to ensure that all three
equally important projects go forward is to make this reduction. Should
the interested parties fail to come to an acceptable agreement over the
San Francisco baylands, the funding could return to the San Diego and
San Joaquin projects.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from California for this statement.
With these assurances, I will support the reduction of funds at the San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge and the San Joaquin National Wildlife
Refuge, and the increase of funds at the Don Edwards National Wildlife
Refuge.
jacob riis park
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to take a moment to thank
Senators Byrd and Burns for their stewardship of the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. Their work on this bill will
secure millions of dollars in funding to help preserve our Nation's
precious natural resources, and I support their efforts wholeheartedly.
My colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, and I would like to take
a moment to engage our colleague in a colloquy.
Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague for his kind words and will be happy
to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. In 1905, New York City's officials entered into an
informal agreement with the New York Association for Improving the
Condition of the Poor, an organization co-founded by journalist Jacob
Riis, to build a recreational facility for the relief of New York
tenement dwellers. The resulting Riis Park, opened to the public in
1936, provided opportunities for diversion to millions of city
residents. The facility became part of the National Park Service's
Gateway National Recreation Area in 1974, and nearly 30,000 people
continue to visit this historic site every weekend.
Over the past few years, I have worked with colleagues from both
sides of the aisle, in both the Senate and the House, to try to secure
funding toward the construction of a natatorium complex at Jacob Riis
Park. This project is supported by the New York Landmarks Conservancy,
the Historic Districts Council, and the Queensboro Preservation League,
as well as the thousands of constituents who turn to this park as a
resource for recreation opportunities every spring, summer, and fall.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, Riis Park serves an ethnically diverse
population including hundreds of inner-city families, adhering to the
ideas envisioned by Jacob Riis and carried on by City Parks
Commissioner Robert Moses. By investing in this urban park, our
government can ensure that it remains a viable resource for years to
come. I stand in full support of funding for the Riis Park Natatorium
Complex.
Mr. SCHUMER. My colleague and I have an inquiry to make of the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from West
Virginia. Both the House and Senate reports to the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 have included $4.13 million in
National Park Service construction funding for rehabilitation of Jacob
Riis Park. Would the chairman support the use of these funds for
construction on the Riis Park Natatorium Complex?
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the remarks of the Senators from New York, and
would support the use of these funds for such construction.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I thank the
Chair.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
[[Page S7570]]
Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I first thank my distinguished
colleagues for their leadership and superb management of this bill. I
want to take a moment to express my support for a matter of great
importance to the people of my State, specifically obtaining funding
for land acquisition in the Chattahoochee National Forest. I understand
that the $2,320,000 included in the Appropriations Interior
Subcommittee report for that purpose will be used to purchase available
tracts of land in, or bordering, the Chattahoochee National Forest in
Georgia. I inquire of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and
chairman of the committee, am I correct in understanding that
$1,300,000 of that total is intended to purchase property at Mount
Yonah near Helen, GA, with the remainder being used to purchase
property at Jack's River near the Cohutta Wilderness and the Etowah
River near Dahlonega, GA?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Georgia is correct regarding the
committee's intent.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator for his inclusion of these
worthwhile projects in the Interior appropriations bill.
Technical Assistance for the New River Gorge National River Parkway
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to take a moment to ask the ranking
member for his agreement to continue a program of importance to the
State of West Virginia. The New River Gorge National River is a scenic
whitewater river that flows through deep canyons and rugged terrain.
The Congress has provided $125,000 annually for technical support and
maintenance on the New River Gorge National River Parkway. Would the
ranking member agree that funding for this purpose be continued within
the National Park Service appropriation in fiscal year 2002?
Mr. BURNS. I agree with the distinguished chairman that this funding
should be continued in fiscal year 2002.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act and Caddo Lake Institute
Wetlands Project
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues
Senator Byrd and Senator Reid for agreeing to work with me in
conference on the Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the
Interior Department funds the Caddo Lake Institute's wetlands project
in east Texas through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
Caddo Lake and its associated wetlands provide habitat for over 150
species of fish and wildlife. It is one of only 17 wetlands in the U.S.
that has earned the distinction of being designated a Ramsar wetland of
international importance pursuant to the international wetlands
convention signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Caddo Lake earned this
distinction, in part, because the local community surrounding Caddo
Lake spearheaded a long effort to convert the area from an army
ammunition plant to a refuge for fish and wildlife. With that
accomplished, the next stage of the effort is to secure North American
Wetlands Conservation Act funding through the Interior bill for the
Caddo Lake Institute so that it may advance the planned restoration and
wetlands education work at the lake. The Institute has been the local
voice and enduring champion for Caddo Lake.
Mr. REID. I would like to be associated with the remarks of my
colleague from Texas. I was fortunate to learn about Caddo Lake and the
Institute's wetlands work at an April 10, 2001 Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on wildlife conservation
efforts. The premise of that hearing was that national and
international conservation goals stand a better chance of
accomplishment if they are driven by the local community.
Caddo Lake is a perfect illustration of that idea. At the lake, the
local community organized the Caddo Lake Institute and then worked with
the State of Texas and the federal government to further the
conservation and educational wetland resources there. This not only
implements important wetland conservation goals in the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act and the Clean Water Act, but also the charge
of the Ramsar Convention; that is, it implements both national and
international conservation goals. Congressman Max Sandlin from the
region testified eloquently about the beauty and value of the lake at
my April 10 hearing, and I am happy to work with my colleagues to
advance the important conservation and education work at Caddo Lake.
Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue, and
will work in conference to encourage the Interior Department to
continue the work my colleagues have begun by funding a Ramsar-based
wetland science, site management and education program through the
Caddo Lake Institute working in partnership with the Division of
International Conservation and the National Wetlands Research Center.
htirc
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the previous support the
subcommittee has granted to the Fine Hardwoods Tree Improvement and
Regeneration Center at Purdue University. The HTIRC is engaged in
research problems and technology transfer related to the regeneration
of fine hardwoods. It is a regional center emphasizing not only genetic
improvements and silvicultural goals, but addressing wildlife and
riparian buffer issues and providing information and outreach to forest
landowners.
In establishing the center, I worked with Dr. Robert Lewis of the
Forest Service. The project has widespread support and is financially
supported not only by the Forest Service and Purdue University, but by
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and by a very wide variety
of forest landowner, industry groups and foundations. It is designed to
improve the quality of hardwood tree seedlings and to address the
annual shortage of hardwood tree seedlings in the midwest.
The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture view the center
as an excellent example of cooperation between government, academia,
and industry in addressing important issues concerning the regeneration
of hardwoods. The proposed new forest biology building and laboratory
complex will soon house eighteen Forest Service employees and would
provide office space and high tech laboratories for these Forest
Service employees rent-free and without any charges for maintenance or
services over the lifetime of the facility.
The total cost of the forestry complex is $27 million. Purdue has
committed $20 million to this effort. The remaining $7 million would be
derived from the Forest Service as its share of the cost to house its
employees, who would receive office space rent-free and maintenance-
free over the lifetime of the facility. Based on a life cycle analysis,
the Forest Service has concluded that this degree of cost sharing is
fully justified and is in fact extremely favorable to the Forest
Service.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including a provision
in this bill that releases $300,000 in previously appropriated funds
for the design and construction of this facility. Construction of the
facility is planned to begin during fiscal year 2002 and the Forest
Service share of that fiscal year's funding needs is estimated at $2
million.
Mr. BURNS. I understand the need for the project, and I appreciate
the Senator's leadership and strong desire to bring this into fruition.
Mr. BYRD. Senator Burns and I will work with the Senator from Indiana
to see if we can find sufficient resources through the conference
process to support the Forest Service's share of this worthy effort.
cane river national heritage area
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I express my sincere appreciation to
the distinguished floor manager and chairman of the Appropriations
Committee for support of my request to provide funds for the Cane River
Creole National Historical Park and Heritage Area. This park, one of
America's most unique historical parks, is in Natchitoches Parish, LA,
the seat of Louisiana's oldest settlement and home to one of the most
interesting and unique cultures in the United States. It is my
understanding that the committee report recommends $650,000 for the
Cane River National Heritage Area.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Louisiana is correct. We were pleased to
be able to recommend funding for this high priority of the Senator.
[[Page S7571]]
Ms. LANDRIEU. With the Senator's forbearance, I want to clarify the
purposes for which these funds are allocated. My request to the
committee, and I assume the committee's recommendation, will continue
funding for the Cane River Heritage Area at last year's rate of
$400,000 for salaries, expenses and grants and will make available to
the Creole Center at Northwestern State University $250,000 to support
important research and documentation of Creole culture in Louisiana. Is
this the committee's intent?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. In developing this recommendation the committee
assumed funding for both these activities in the amounts the Senator
described.
minnesota forest funding
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask consent to engage in a colloquy
with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and of its Subcommittee on Interior. The
purpose is to discuss two items in the bill which relate to the
management and vitality of national forests in my state of Minnesota--
specifically, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests. The chairman
and the subcommittee have done a very commendable job in the bill of
providing needed funding for the continued multiple uses of our
national forests. I would like to draw his attention to two provisions
important to Minnesota.
First, as my colleague knows, on July 4, 1999, both the Superior and
Chippewa National Forests bore the brunt of a massive, once-in-a-
thousand years wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern
Minnesota. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties,
including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests,
and it washed out numerous roads. The damage severely hindered the U.S.
Forest Service's ability to responsibly manage both the Chippewa and
Superior National Forests.
The ``blowdown'' of trees created extreme risk of catastrophic fire
due to the amount of downed and dead timber. Yet while the storm has
changed affected portions of the forests for years to come and has
created new risks and experiences for visitors and residents, officials
from 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. Key to that recovery is
help provided last year in this bill. The Senate last year provided $14
million for efforts that continue today. I was pleased to work with the
chairman, and I still appreciate his support at that time.
At the same time, there remains a dangerous fire threat in Superior
and Chippewa, and the Forest Service plans to continue their recovery
work there through fuel reduction, reforestation and general
rehabilitation. The bill before us contains increased general funding
for such management, recovery and rehabilitation, and I would seek my
colleague's assurance that it is his understanding that an adequate
portion of that funding will allow the Superior and Chippewa National
Forests to continue their crucial efforts.
Mr. BYRD. I am aware of the devastating storm that affected my
colleague's state in 1999, and I was pleased to assist the Senator from
Minnesota at that time. The recovery efforts begun with that funding
should certainly continued as needed, and I believe the subcommittee
intends that this bill will provide adequate resources to complete
scheduled work in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. The second item I would like to
mention is that both the Superior and Chippewa National Forests are
currently working to complete their forest management plans. The
existing plans for these two forests, last revised in 1986, guide the
forests' multiple use missions and lay out goals for habitat
protection, resource production, soil protection and other aims. The
National Forest Management Act requires an update of forest plans every
10-15 years. The Chippewa and Superior National Forests are now jointly
revising their plans. This process allows efficient public
participation rather than two parallel processes. It also provides
greater consistency in resource management between the forests.
Substantial public involvement has already helped develop the purpose
and need for revising the plans, defining the issues and building a
preliminary set of alternatives. The forests have ongoing consultation
with four Minnesota Bands of Ojibwe, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, seven adjacent counties, as well as various
interested stakeholders. The current forest planning work includes
incorporating a required species viability evaluation initiated during
2000. While the 1986 forest plans continue to provide direction during
the revision process, with ongoing public involvement, a final
environmental impact statement and revised forest plans are expected in
next year.
Again, I am seeking my colleague's reassurances that sufficient land
management planning funds in this bill should be available to the
Superior and Chippewa National Forests to allow for full revision of
their forest plans?
Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the Senator's attention to this issue. He is
correct to point out the commendable work underway in the Minnesota
forests. The Senator is aware that the President requested $70,358,000
for land management planning in fiscal year 2002, while this
Appropriations Committee has provided $70,718,000, an increase of
$360,000. For that reason, I agree, and I believe the subcommittee
would agree, that this legislation should provide adequate resources to
the Superior and Chippewa National Forests to complete their forest
management plans.
``Critical Energy Efficiency Programs''
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of myself and
Senators Bingaman, Boxer, and Dorgan, to state our strong support for
critical energy efficiency programs within the Department of Energy. My
colleagues and I have been working with the chairman and ranking member
over the last few days to restore and fully fund these important
programs. We believe that the proven efficacy of these programs merit
allocation of additional funds.
The Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, uses alternative
financing vehicles, technical assistance, and outreach campaigns to
make our federal agencies more energy efficient. Although this program
uses only a small amount of federal funding, its energy reduction
strategies save the U.S. government, and thus American taxpayers,
hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This program has proven to be a
great investment. The Federal government is the largest user of energy
in the United States and FEMP has helped reduce energy use per square
foot of floor area in federal buildings by 19 percent since 1985,
resulting in cumulative savings of $6 billion since 1985. FEMP has also
trained over 13,000 federal energy managers, assisted with the design
of over 200 energy saving projects, and helped federal agencies make
use of market-based energy saving performance contracts.
These are the type of programs we must support, programs that provide
a great return for our Federal dollars and keep returning those
benefits year after year. These programs also lessen the environmental
impact of the federal government, reduce our government's dependence on
foreign oil, and leverage private sector resources.
I also suggest expanding several successful, community-based building
technology assistance programs. These programs provide technical
assistance, demonstrations, training, and education to communities to
accelerate the use of innovative and cost-effective energy
technologies, strategies, and methods. One particularly successful
example is the Energy Smart Schools campaign that provides a
comprehensive portfolio of energy efficiency technologies, and works
directly with national, state, and local organizations that influence
school construction and modernization.
Let me share with you how Seattle Public Schools used this program to
reap the extensive rewards of energy-saving retrofits. Through a
collaborative effort involving Seattle City Light, Seattle Public
Utilities, Puget Sound Energy, and the Bonneville Power Administration,
dozens of Seattle public schools received lighting retrofits, water
conservation measures, upgraded energy management systems, and
education on how to use energy more efficiently. Combined, these
efforts reduced the school system's annual energy bills by a third,
saving 15.5
[[Page S7572]]
million kilowatts of energy. I urge the Department to commit these
additional funds in the Western states that have been severely impacted
by the electricity crisis.
Because the budget allocation in the Senate is significantly less
than the House, the Weatherization Program also has received less
funding in the Senate than in the House bill. It is an effective
program--for every one dollar spent, three are saved.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I appreciate the budgetary
constraints that we must operate within for the Interior and related
agency appropriations bill. We appreciate the chairman's assistance in
increasing funding levels for these programs.
Could the chairman of the Appropriations Committee inform me as to
his intention with regard to increasing the funding levels of these key
energy conservation programs?
Mr. BYRD. I agree that these energy conservation programs are very
important. If additional funds are available during conference, I would
consider increases in these programs.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you for your support.
restoration and maintenance of the arlington house
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with
Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns concerning the renovation and
restoration needs of the National Park Service property, the Arlington
House, across the Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery.
Arlington House is uniquely associated with the historic Virginia
families of Washington, Custis and Lee. It was built by George
Washington Park Custis and was the home of Robert E. Lee until the
Civil War. Over the years, Arlington House has become an integral part
of the core monument area here in the Nation's Capital. Not only is it
located at the center of the Arlington National Cemetery, but it is
emblematic of the post-Civil War bond between North and South, Abraham
Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are symbolically united by the Memorial
Bridge which connects the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House.
In recent years, the National Park Service has been unable to
properly maintain the physical structure of Arlington House to
safeguard its artifacts and collections, thereby causing many of the
rooms in this historic house to be closed to the public.
The National Park Service has identified the total funding
requirements to restore Arlington House. It is my understanding that a
minimum of $2.5 million is needed in fiscal 2002 to preserve this
facility.
I am aware that the chairman and ranking member were faced with many
significant funding demands in this bill. They have done an admirable
job to provide the maximum amount of funding available to preserve our
nation's historic resources. I bring to their attention the significant
needs of Arlington House and respectfully request that in conference
with the House that this matter be given their attention.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his
interest in the historic Arlington House. I am aware that funding for
the restoration needs for the Arlington House was requested in the
President's budget and I can assure the Senator from Virginia that the
committee will carefully consider this important project as we continue
to assess the maintenance and restoration needs of National Park
Service properties.
Mr. BURNS. I concur with Chairman Byrd and can assure the Senator
from Virginia that the restoration of the Arlington House will receive
our attention during the conference with the House of Representatives.
We will make every effort to address the needs of this historic home.
THE FOREST SERVICE AND WILD FIRES
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President there is a serious crisis in my home
State of Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, where literally millions of
trees have been killed due to insect infestation. This is causing a
major fire danger situation. Many homes and communities are at risk. I
was very disturbed to learn recently that the Forest Service had
initiated a prescribed burn near Seward that got away from them when
the wind shifted. While fortunately the fire was contained before it
damaged private property, this incident causes me to be concerned about
the level of oversight the agency uses when burning in these very high
risk areas.
Mr. BYRD. I recall that my friend from Alaska mentioning this during
the committee markup of this bill. I assure you now, as I did then,
that I am ready to help in any way possible to be sure the Forest
Service applies adequate oversight to its hazard reduction activities.
Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I just recently met
with Chief Dale Bosworth of the Forest Service and expressed my
concern. I asked the chief to promptly provide me with a report that
addresses how communities that are at risk can be assured when the
agency plans a prescribed burn, that all potential factors are taken
into account, and the decision to initiate a prescribed burn has been
adequately reviewed. I also asked the chief to insure that local
elected officials concerns are accounted for before a burn is ignited
and to look at naming a Forest Service official in each region who
would be in charge of approving any burn plans. I have also provided an
amendment that I understand is in the managers package that addresses
the specific situation with the prescribed burn I just noted on the
Kenai and other areas of high fire risk across the country. This
amendment provides the Forest Service with the authority to use
$15,000,000 of Wildland Fire Management funds on adjacent non-federal
lands, using all authorities available to the agency under its State
and Private Forestry Appropriation. These funds will be available for
reducing fire hazard on adjacent non-federal lands and protecting
communities when hazard reduction activities planned on adjacent
national forest lands. The Forest Service assures me that portions of
these funds will be used to protect communities on the Kenai Peninsula.
I expect the Forest Service to strongly consider areas of the Kenai as
candidates for the stewardship end results contracting, as specified in
Section 347 of public law 105-277, and which the committee has amended
to provide for up to 28 additional contracts.
Mr. BYRD. I am pleased to include this amendment in the managers
package and feel it will be extremely helpful in protecting communities
from the threat of wild fire.
smithsonian center for materials research and education
Mr. SARBANES. Would the distinguished chairman yield for the purpose
of a colloquy regarding language contained in the bill concerning the
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education.
Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield to my friend, the senior Senator
from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I remain deeply concerned with the
Secretary of the Smithsonian's decision to close a number of the
Institution's scientific and research facilities, including the
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE) located
in Prince George's County, MD. It is my understanding that language
contained in the bill would preclude any funds to be utilized for the
purpose of closing SCMRE and the other relevant facilities without the
approval by the Board of Regents of recommendations made in this regard
by the Secretary's proposed Science Commission.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. It is also my understanding that the bill provides
sufficient funding to ensure that SCMRE's programs can continue at last
year's level.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is again correct.
Mr. SARBANES. For nearly 40 years, researchers and scientists at
SCMRE have been leaders in the field of preservation research and
analysis. They have contributed greatly to the conservation efforts of
museums and institutions throughout the nation and around the world by
offering training programs and technical assistance. I would like to
quote from an editorial that appeared on May 8 in the New York Times
that captures the importance of preserving this facility:
. . . [C]aring for artworks, which can often be done in
museum labs, is far different from scientifically studying
how to care for them. Over the years, the Materials Research
Center has created an extensive store of archaeological data
based on its work on collections from around the world. It
makes no
[[Page S7573]]
sense for the Smithsonian--the most remarkable accumulation
of objects on earth--to close a national laboratory whose
very purpose is to analyze the material basis of its
collections.
I thank the chairman for his time and commend him for his leadership
and assistance in this matter.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of the
fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill for working with me to
provide Forest Legacy funding for an important conservation project in
the western mountain region of Maine.
In drafting the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002,
the managers have demonstrated, once again, their commitment to
promoting conservation. I am particularly pleased that the bill funds
Forest Legacy at $65 million--the most that has ever been allocated for
this important and growing program--and I am grateful for the support
Chairman Byrd and Senator Burns have given to projects in my Sate this
year and in years past.
Neither the Interior appropriations bill that passed in the house nor
the Senate bill voted out of committee included funding for the
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue conservation project in the western mountain region
of Maine. Because of the importance of this project to my State, I
proposed an amendment to the bill to dedicate Forest Legacy fund to the
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue initiative. Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns
have graciously agreed to accept a modified version of my amendment,
which will earmark $1 million for the project.
The western mountain region of my State is a beautiful area that has
long been valued for recreation, natural resources, scenic values and
productive forest lands that fuel Maine's forest product industries.
These traditional uses, which would be protected in perpetuity by this
conservation project, are of tremendous value to the local communities
and the region's economy.
Recent changes in land ownership and land use has led to local
concern that the character of the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue area will be
permanently altered. This has prompted the State, local businesses, and
conservation groups to promote a long-term conservation vision for the
region that will prevent this forested landscape from being converted
as a result of development pressures. Making this conservation vision a
reality entails the acquisition of 31,240 acres around Mt. Blue State
Park and along Tumbledown Mountain through fee and easement purchases.
Funding the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue Conservation project will enable the
State to protect critical properties adjacent to the park and some of
Maine's most scenic areas--including Tumbledown Mountain, Jackson
Mountain, Blueberry Mountain, and trailheads leading to these peaks. I
would also proudly point out to my colleagues that Mt. Blue State Park
is one of Maine's most popular recreation spots and was recently voted
by Outdoor magazine as one of the ten best family vacation areas in the
country. The area contains rugged summits, alpine ridges, and wetlands,
as well as habitat for the federally listed bald eagle and one of
Maine's only successful peregrine falcon nesting terrorities.
I am pleased to say that several landowners within the project area
are ready now to put their resource lands into a conservation plan that
will permanently protect and allow public access to recreation lands,
scenic areas, and trailheads leading up Tumbledown, while providing for
sustainable harvesting on the more productive and less environmentally
sensitive forested areas. This is a locally driven win-win approach to
resolving the various concerns that arise out of changes in the region.
I applaud the many individuals and groups that have invested time in
bringing this project about. It is heartening to know how deeply they
care about their community, and I appreciate having this opportunity to
determine my support for their efforts.
Last year, because of the generous funding level the Interior
Subcommittee was able to provide the Forest Legacy Program, $1.17
million was allocated to the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain project for
the first phase of acquisition. This year, to complete the project
another $4 million is needed. I am concerned that unless we make
funding progress in fiscal year 2002 with the willing sellers now in
place, Maine will lose a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect a
truly wonderful resource.
I want to thank very much the Senators from West Virginia and Montana
for their willingness to work with me and Senator Snowe on this
critical important project.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I would like to take
this opportunity to commend an agreement that was reached with regards
to the Landrieu-Smith amendment to the Interior appropriations bill.
Simply put, the purpose of the amendment was to fix what is essentially
a technical concern with the bill and improve the way that States
received their portions of the $100 million. This would be done by
utilizing an already established wildlife conservation fund and its
formula parameters instead of creating a new program with a new
formula.
I do want to make it clear that I am extremely supportive of the
funding that is provided in this Interior appropriations bill for the
State Wildlife Grant Fund. I believe that these dollars will be of
great benefit to State efforts to protect wildlife populations. I am
especially pleased that the bill allows the States to determine the
manner in which to utilize these resources.
The Landrieu-Smith amendment would seek to use the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program, under the popular and successful
Pittman-Robertson Program, that was established in the fiscal year 2001
Commerce-Justice-State appropriation law. The law also provided $50
million under formula apportionment to the States for high priority
wildlife conservation, education and recreation projects. That language
was included at my request because of my concern for equitable
distribution of valuable conservation funds. In fact, I have recently
introduced a bill--the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001,
S.990--that would extend the authorization of that program through
2006. The Landrieu-Smith amendment would allocate the $100 million set-
aside for the State Wildlife Grants Fund to the already established
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.
Adoption of our amendment would improve, and make more equitable, the
way that these dollars are allocated to the States. Our amendment would
allow for the allocation of funds under the formula established last
year in the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program. Funding in
that program is based two-thirds on the population of the State and
one-third on the land area. It also guarantees that a single State
would receive no less than one percent and no more than five percent of
the available funds. This formula was supported by all 50 State fish
and wildlife agencies as being the most equitable distribution to
address conservation needs throughout the country.
The Interior appropriations bill that was reported by the
Appropriations Committee would have changed that formula. This would
result in a considerable gain of funds for only 2 States, but a loss
for 37 other States. To change the already established formula would
compromise the ability of the majority of our states to effectively
address their wildlife conservation needs.
I am seeking to change back to what was established last year because
I believe that is what is most fair to all States and already has their
strong support. Regardless of whether or not our amendment was agreed
to, New Hampshire's funding will not be impacted--to me it is an issue
of fairness.
It also makes much more sense to appropriate the $100 million to an
already existing account with set allocation parameters that has
demonstrated success than to create a new bureaucratic process. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife are agencies
already familiar with the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program
and could administer the program efficiently. Why impose a new set of
criteria for allocation of the fiscal year 02 funds when the previously
established criteria works so well?
Through excellent cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State fish and wildlife agencies, all 50 States have already
qualified to receive their apportionment of the $50 million made
available by last
[[Page S7574]]
year's Commerce-Justice-State appropriations law and are in the process
of submitting their project agreements. Adopting this amendment would
have allowed this process to continue smoothly into the next fiscal
year.
I am pleased to support what I believe is a fair compromise to this
amendment. The Interior appropriations bill that passed the Senate this
evening reflects the changes in the formula that our amendment intended
to make, without sending the funds through the Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Program. Even though the previously established account
is not being used to distribute the funds, I am pleased that the funds
will be allocated using a formula that all 50 State fish and wildlife
agencies have agreed to as fair and equitable.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in favor of the Landrieu
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill regarding the
distribution of $100 million in state wildlife grants for priority
wildlife conservation, education, and restoration projects. As
currently written, the Interior appropriations bill changes the way
these grants are allocated to the States. The change would negatively
affect the amount of grant money most states would receive.
Last year, Congress established the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account as part of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Fund. It was Congress' intent that funds from the account
be distributed to the states through a formula based on one-third of
the land area of a state and two-thirds population. Congress also said
that no state will receive less than one percent or more than five
percent of the total funding.
The Landrieu amendment would distribute the funds under the same
formula allocation that was enacted last year by directing them through
the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
All 50 State fish and wildlife agencies agree that the formula
Congress enacted last year is the most equitable distribution of these
funds. If we agree to the formula proposed in the Interior
appropriations bill, 37 States will receive less money. Ohio would
receive over $100,000 less than under the already established formula.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources supports the Landrieu
amendment.
With so many States facing such large reductions in the amount of
grant money they would receive, it makes sense to distribute these
funds based on the equitable formula that Congress agreed to last year.
Support of the Landrieu amendment will ensure that the $100 million
appropriated for State wildlife grants is distributed fairly and
provides all states with the funds they need for their most critical
wildlife and conservation projects.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in the managers' package is contained an
amendment which provides for the repeal of section 819 of the Omnibus
Indian Advancement Act.
In my view, this is a matter that is more appropriately addressed in
the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Accordingly, I intend to work with my colleagues to see that this
proposed repeal of a section of authorizing legislation is removed from
the Interior appropriations bill and addressed in the appropriate
forum.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this bill is the first appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2002 the Senate is considering. I am pleased to be
a member of the subcommittee that has the responsibility for writing
this bill each year.
I have enjoyed working on the issues and programs that must be
addressed each year during our hearings and the development of this
legislation.
The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have a
major presence in my state. The levels of funding for their activities
and responsibilities in Mississippi have a significant impact on our
interest in protecting our natural resources and historic attractions.
I'm glad the Committee's bill provides an increase in the funding for
operation and maintenance of the Natchez Trace Parkway. The beauty and
living history facilities of this parkway attract tourists and local
visitors alike, and its completion has been one of my highest personal
priorities.
The Vicksburg National Military Park will be enhanced by the
acquisition of the house used by General Pemberton as his headquarters
during the siege of Vicksburg. Along with funding for a needed
stabilization project, this commitment will enable the Park to continue
to attract more than one million visitors each year.
There are also funds in this bill to help pay the cost of
acquisition, as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, of Cat
Island, which is located in the Gulf of Mexico off the Coast of
Mississippi.
Other provisions of this bill allow the continued construction of the
Franklin County Lake in the Homochitto National Forest which will be a
very important recreational resource for the people of southwest
Mississippi.
An increase in funding is also provided in the bill as payments in
lieu of taxes to counties that contain federal lands. This will help
offset the losses that have occurred in many of these counties by
changes in forest management policies of the U.S. Forest Service.
The bill also includes $6.3 million for research programs that will
be performed by the University of Mississippi and Mississippi State
University.
The National Park Service is also responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the Natchez National Historical Park which contains some
of the most interesting properties that reflect the lifestyles and
cultural diversity of the early settlers in the oldest continuously
inhabited town on the Mississippi River. The City of Natchez is also
the southern terminus of the Natchez Trace Parkway.
This bill contains funds for continued enhancement of the historical
park which will enrich the experience of visitors to this unique
educational resource in my state.
Another interesting destination for visitors is the Corinth
Battlefield in northeast Mississippi which was included in a list of
the top ten most important Civil War battlefields by former Secretary
of the Interior Manuel Lujan. It is located near the Shiloh National
Military Park and will be the site of a new Civil War Interpretive
Center. This building will be constructed with funds that are included
in this bill at the request of our state's delegation in Congress.
My colleague, Trent Lott, has taken the lead in making this new
addition to our state's list of federally supported projects a reality.
Congressman Roger Wicker has also been a key influence in the
appropriations process on this project as well as the Brice's
Crossroads site.
Taken as a whole, the provisions of this Interior Appropriations bill
will contribute to the economy of our state and at the same time help
protect valuable natural resources, historic attractions and our
environment.
I appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the managers of the
bill and my staff member, Ginger Wallace, who worked hard to help
develop the provisions of the bill that were of specific interest in
our State of Mississippi.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to support the Education and
Training Center for the Power Generation Industry at Bismarck State
College. Although funding for this program is not explicitly mentioned
in the Interior Appropriations bill, I would like to see the
relationship between Bismarck State College (BSC) and the Department of
Energy grow during the next fiscal year as BSC builds on its
Partnership to Improve Energy Technology Training and Education. Last
year, BSC's Energy Technology Program received $50,000 in competitive
Federal funding to develop a new curriculum based on conventional and
advanced power technologies. Given that the Chairman has been kind
enough to increase the budget request for fossil fuel research and
development, I would hope that the DoE will provide the funds to expand
this program next year, especially given the challenges that the power
industry will face in the coming years.
I applaud those at Bismarck State College who have been working on
this project, and it is my hope that the Committee could provide some
funding for this program as we move this bill to conference so that the
College could further develop the curriculum plan and provide
nationwide online courses in power generation management.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I
have
[[Page S7575]]
offered to section 107 of the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2002. The amendment is intended to clarify that under that section
preleasing activities are prohibited, just as they are in other
sections of the bill that restrict oil and gas development in other
waters.
Section 107 now reads as follows: ``no funds provided in this title
may be expended by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of
offshore leasing and related activities placed under restriction in the
President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998.'' This includes the
areas of northern, central, and southern California, the North
Atlantic, Washington, Oregon, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of
26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 degrees west longitude.
I want to stress that it is my belief that section 107 prohibits
preleasing activities because preleasing activities are, by their very
nature, related activities. However, sections 108, 109 and 110 create
moratoria on offshore leasing for the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic,
North Aleutian Basin and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and these
sections restrict preleasing, leasing, and related activities. I am
concerned that the discrepancy between Section 107 and these other
sections creates the potential for legal ambiguity that may put the
areas listed in Section 107 at risk. Specifically, it may be argued
that a set of activities exists preleasing activities that are
prohibited under Sections 108, 109 and 110 but not prohibited under
Section 107.
The simple, straightforward amendment I have proposed adds preleasing
to the list of prohibited activities in Section 107. It would clarify
Congressional intent and serve as a preventative step against any
challenge to the meaning of the prohibition. It would do no more than
clarify that California, the North Atlantic, Washington, Oregon and
portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico have the same protections now
provided to the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and other areas in
Sections 108, 109 and 110.
In closing I want to briefly discuss one reason why this amendment
and the clarification it would provide is important to Massachusetts
and New England. That reason is Georges Bank a natural wonder
critically important to our state's economy and environment. Georges
Bank supports Atlantic cod, scallops, haddock, yellowtail flounder and
other valuable commercial species. Endangered species including the
right whale, humpback whale and sei whale rely on Georges Bank and the
surrounding area for feeding and as a migratory pathway. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with
protecting marine resources, has warned that oil and gas exploration in
Georges Bank threatens these commercial and endangered species. NOAA
and others have pointed out that despite advances in drilling
technology, exploration carries inherent risks from spills, other
accidental releases, drilling muds, seepage and other sources. I
strongly believe petroleum exploration in the unique and extremely
valuable habitat of Georges Bank poses unnecessary economic and
environmental risk.
I want to thank Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns for working
with me to secure the passage of this important amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and I have
introduced the Kerry-Snowe Georges Bank amendment to the fiscal year
2002 Interior Appropriations bill today to make absolutely certain that
language in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill before us
is modified to ensure that there will be no pre-leasing activities on
Georges Bank. Language in the bill does prohibit the expenditure of
funds by the Department of Interior for activities related to offshore
leasing in the North Atlantic area, but I wanted the guarantee that
pre-leasing activities would be out of bounds as well.
Currently, both the United States and Canada have moratoria on oil
and gas exploration until 2012 for the ecologically sensitive Georges
Bank. What the Kerry-Snowe amendment does is include language in the
Senate bill to prohibit any pre-leasing activities for the Georges Bank
area, such as is included for the Mid- and South Atlantic. We are
adding this language for the North Atlantic as well because of
indications over the past few months that the administration could be
considering legal and administrative groundwork for accessing Georges
Bank.
Report recommendations to the Secretary of Interior by the
Subcommittee on Natural Gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
included a recommendation that the Mineral Management Service, in
consultation with industry and affected States, identify the five top
geologic places for natural gas reserves in the moratoria areas, where
industry would most likely explore, and where seismic data could be
collected. Georges Bank is reported to be one of these prospects.
Our added pre-leasing language for the North Atlantic area makes
Section 107 of the bill consistent with Section 110 of the bill that
does not allow Interior Department funding to conduct oil and natural
gas pre-leasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-Atlantic and
South Atlantic planning areas.
As I recently wrote the President, I strongly believe that the
moratoria should not be lifted on this 185-mile-long bank that
stretches from Nova Scotia to Cape Cod--five-sixths of which is owned
by the U.S. This broad, shallow fishing ground is one of the world's
most productive, and current available natural gas reserves in the U.S.
dwarf those which are projected to be available on the Georges Bank.
I want to sincerely thank the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairs Byrd and Burns for accepting the Kerry-Snowe amendment as part
of the Managers amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to support the Trails and Rails
Program, a national partnership between Amtrak and the National Park
Service. This program provides on-board educational programs to rail
travelers. It has played a valuable role in educating Americans about
the historic landmark sites in this country. This is an excellent
outreach program that allows the National Park Service to reach non-
traditional visitors and introduce them to our national parks, trails
and historic sites.
I am particularly excited about this program as we begin to celebrate
the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Last May, the
famous footsteps of the Lewis and Clark along the trail in North Dakota
and Montana came alive as their historic journey was retraced by guests
aboard Amtrak's Empire Builder train. This program has been laying the
foundation for the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration,
which will officially begin in 2003. Train passengers have already been
able to explore historic areas along the Lewis and Clark trail such as
the Union Trading Post National Historic Site in Williston, ND. It is
my hope that the National Park Service could continue its partnership
so that Amtrak passengers can explore other historic sites in the Lewis
and Clark expedition.
Although fiscal year 2002 funding has not yet been identified for
this program, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important National Park Service partnership. I trust that some funding
will be included for this partnership in the final version of the
Interior appropriations bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the provisions
in this bill that enhance the Steel Loan Guarantee program. The changes
adopted today will provide invaluable assistance to our nation's steel
companies as they strive to stay afloat in the face of overwhelming
surges of finished and semi-finished steel imports.
As you know, our domestic steel industry finds itself reeling from
record import surges. Numerous companies are either in bankruptcy, have
filed for bankruptcy, or are on the verge of doing so. On the Iron
Range in my home state of Minnesota, for example, citing poor economic
conditions, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at the Hoyt
Lakes mine, leaving 1400 workers out of work and affecting another 5000
additional workers as well. These are hard working people who want
desperately to work the trades they were trained for and have been
doing for generation upon generation.
The changes we are making today in the Steel Loan Guarantee program
will make it easier for companies to access much needed capital. In
particular, we are increasing the loan coverage for a
[[Page S7576]]
portion of the loans under this program from 85 percent to 95 percent
and extending the duration of financing from 5 to 15 years. These
changes represent one component of S. 957, the comprehensive Steel
Revitalization Act of 2001 that I, along with Senator Byrd, Senator
Dayton and others introduced earlier this year.
I am pleased that we are taking the opportunity today to move a
portion of this comprehensive measure. And I will continue to press
this passage of the remaining elements of this much-needed legislation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to comment on the Interior
appropriations bill which the Senate has passed by voice vote. I am
satisfied, that unlike in years past, this bill is relatively free from
anti-environmental riders. I commend the chairman (Mr. Byrd) and the
ranking member (Mr. Stevens) for producing a bill that is largely free
from riders which many of my constituents view as an undemocratic way
to address environmental issues. I have been pleased by the progress on
this bill, and by the manager's efforts to allow important
environmental issues the benefit of an up or down vote on the floor.
Though the bill this year has been considered by the Senate with an
improved process, I do have some concerns about a few of the bill's
provisions. First, I understand that the Senate fiscal year 2002
Interior bill includes $65 million for the Forest Legacy Program of the
U.S. Forest Service, a program I strongly support. I further understand
that, of the $65 million provided for the Forest Legacy program, $35.26
million has been allocated by the Senate Interior appropriations
Subcommittee in the committee report to fund specific projects. I hope
tat this allocation leaves approximately $29.8 million available to be
distributed by the Forest Service to other priority projects, such as
the Tomahawk Northwoods project in Northern Wisconsin. The Tomahawk
project was specifically enumerated to receive funds by in the House
report on the 2002 Interior appropriations bill, and it is my hope that
the Senate's bill leaves flexibility so that this project can indeed be
funded by the Forest Service.
I also want to share my concern regarding section 330 of the fiscal
year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. Section 330 extends for 50
years a special use permit for a cabin located in the Absaroka-
Beartooth Wilderness Area in Montana. I hope that the conferees on this
legislation will give serious consideration to removing this provision
and referring the matters to the Senate Energy Committee for their
review. My concern, as a Senator who is concerned about federal
wilderness management, is that allowing the cabin to remain, without
the benefit of review by the appropriate authorizing committee, could
set a precedent that is contrary to the Wilderness Act, Forest Service
policy and the Custer National Forest Management plan. It would be my
hope that review by the Energy Committee would clarify whether the
Montana State University-Billings indeed has the ability to apply for
an extension of the special use permit that had been held by the
cabin's previous owner.
Finally, I understand that the managers' amendment contains language
concerning the management of cruise ships in Glacier Bay National Park.
Though I understand that this language represents a compromise worked
out over the last few hours, I feel that an important policy matter
such as this one would be better left to the authorizing committee. I
believe legislative language which seeks to addresses serious legal
issues over the reduction of cruise ship traffic required by Federal
courts deserves full and fair consideration through proper hearings and
review. I hope that the conference committee will give serious
consideration to removing this provision.
I am pleased to support this year's bill, and I hope so see a bill
free from environmental riders emerge from conference.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been fortunate to be in this
Chamber during the entire time the Interior bill has been debated. I
would like to take a few minutes to commend the President pro tempore
of the Senate, who is also the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee,
for the tremendous leadership he has shown not only on the Interior
bill but on the supplemental appropriations bill we passed. It shows
his experience and his dedication to the Senate. He has taken the helm
of the Appropriations Committee firmly and has confidently steered this
bill in the right direction. There have been very difficult decisions
to make in crafting this bill.
I also want to take a minute to express my public appreciation to
Ranking Member Burns for the work they have done. If there were ever a
bipartisan bill--and I hope it remains that way in the remaining hours
of this bill, and I am confident it will--this is it.
These two legislators have worked to come up with an appropriate
package that has the best they could do with the tools they had, the
limited amount of money they had, to satisfy hundreds and hundreds of
requests from Members and from different entities making up our Federal
Government. It has been a very difficult time. From a personal
perspective, I think they have done exemplary work.
About 4 years ago I asked President Clinton to convene a summit in
Lake Tahoe. I did that out of desperation. I was at the lake and had,
for 15 years, worked to try to do something to improve the quality of a
place that has been called by Mark Twain the fairest place in all the
Earth. It is a beautiful lake. It is a part of nature that you can only
appreciate by being there; it is so absolutely fantastic.
We had a show over here, and there is a display now in the rotunda of
the Russell Building that has great photographs of Lake Tahoe. I spoke
briefly there last night. A man by the name of Dr. Goldman, who is the
leading expert on the ecology of that lake, spoke. He said he has been
all over the world. He has been to Lake Baikal in Siberia in the Soviet
Union. Lake Baikal has 20 percent of all the fresh water in the world,
in one lake. It is well over a mile deep. It is a beautiful lake. I am
fortunate; I have been there. But Dr. Goldman said he has been to most
all the major lakes in the world, and, by far, Lake Tahoe is the most
beautiful.
So I asked the President to convene a summit because I had not been
able to accomplish what I needed. Out of desperation, I said to the
press that I thought the only thing that would work is to convene a
summit and have the world understand what a calamity is about to occur.
I confided in the President that I had done this and asked if he
would support me in this effort. He said: Yes, I will come to Lake
Tahoe. And he did. It was not a photo opportunity. And that would have
been more than I could ask, if the President of the United States would
come to Lake Tahoe for a photo opportunity, but he did more than that.
We had six Cabinet officers who held townhall meetings in the months
prior to the President coming. Over 1,000 people participated in those
townhall meetings when the summit was convened, with the President and
Vice President there at Lake Tahoe, and the groups concerned about the
lake--the environmentalists, the people who had wanted to build homes
there, contractors, small businessmen, big businessmen, people who were
against gambling, people who were for gambling. They were all there
speaking from the same page.
They agreed that something had to be done. So the summit--rather than
being a boisterous affair where people were pointing fingers at each
other--was a lovefest. As a result of that, we have been able to get a
lot of help for Lake Tahoe. Part of that help is in this bill.
This bill increased, by over 100 percent, the amount of money going
to Lake Tahoe. Senators Feinstein and Boxer--and now Senator Ensign--we
have worked together. We have made progress. But it all started as a
result of that summit.
I appreciate very much the attention of Senators Burns and Byrd,
recognizing that Lake Tahoe really may be the fairest place in all the
Earth.
They have increased funding this year by over 100 percent. This
commitment will help make the Federal Government a full partner in the
ongoing effort to conserve this exquisite jewel of the American
environment. California has done its share. Nevada has done its share
by floating bond issues. Now the Federal Government is coming through.
[[Page S7577]]
Chairman Byrd and ranking member Burns also helped improve the
prospects for county governments throughout the entire West by
allocating $220 million for PILT--Payment in Lieu of Taxes--Programs.
I thank Senators Byrd and Burns for making an effort to breathe life
back into the budget of the United States Geological Survey, which was
treated very badly by this administration. The Bush administration did
everything it could to kill the Geological Survey, this great
institution of government. John Wesley Powell was the first leader of
the U.S. Geological Survey, a man whose arm was cut off. The nerves
were exposed and whenever he would bump it, it would hurt more than a
person can imagine. With that bad arm, he led the first group to float
the mighty Colorado. He was the father of the Geological Survey.
Senators Byrd and Burns have breathed life back into this wonderful
institution that is so important to our country.
This agency has had a tremendously positive impact all over the
United States. For example, the Presiding Officer traveled with me to
Fallon, NV, to find out why we have children dying. Since we were
there, one child has died. They have discovered two or three other
cases of childhood leukemia. We went there seeking evidence as to why
these children are sick and dying.
One of the things being done about this is being done by the U.S.
Geological Survey. They are testing water wells in Fallon as I speak so
people in Nevada know whether the water they are drinking is safe. The
U.S. Geological Survey is our preeminent scientific agency, some say
the greatest scientific agency we have in Government. That is
debatable, but they do great work.
I appreciate the leaders of the subcommittee who recognized this by
restoring the budget. The public land agencies funded by the Interior
appropriations bill are of great importance to the State of Nevada: the
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation. They do tremendous
things for our country. I am grateful that Chairman Byrd and ranking
member Burns have done their best to fund these agencies.
I am confident we can finish this bill today. I hope we can. The
managers have worked during the night, and staff members are still
working to come up with a proposal to end this legislation quickly.
There may be a few disputed matters to be resolved this afternoon. I
wanted to spend a minute recognizing the great work done by the two
managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (H.R. 2217), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House of
Representatives and the Chair appoints Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Campbell, conferees on the part of the Senate.
____________________