[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2286-S2287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Jeffords,  and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2064. A bill to reauthorize the United States Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes: to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental 
Conflict Resolution. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, 
Senators Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Daniel K. Inouye. 
  The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering 
an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental 
conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in 
lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In 
cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court 
proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still 
a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for 
alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to 
address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged 
Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
  The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and 
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to 
build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The 
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden 
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many 
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
  The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have 
imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already 
provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts 
across 30 States.
  Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of 
Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for 
assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the 
Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the 
management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in 
the Northwest.
  The Institute also assisted in facilitating interagency teamwork for 
the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades 
Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to 
bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on 
grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even Members of Congress 
have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the 
Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative 
processes.
  Currently, the Institute is involved in more than 20 cases and many 
more are pending consideration. The Institute accomplishes its work by 
maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and 
facilitators located in 39 States. We believe that mediators should be 
involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and 
that system is working.
  The demand on the Institute's assistance has been much greater than 
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not 
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal 
Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and 
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving 
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and 
designing internal systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
  Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal 
agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to 
pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a 
participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of 
parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will 
provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford 
mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.
  In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation 
simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional 5 
years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed 
increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's 
services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by 
preventing costly litigation.
  On February 11, 2002, the Arizona Daily Star included an editorial 
that recognizes the benefits of this Institute to resolving 
environmental conflicts faced by various parties, including Federal and 
non-Federal parties, and recommends continuing support for the 
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Arizona Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2002]

                          An Effective Agency

       One of the little-known gems in Tucson is one of the few 
     federal agencies, if not the only one, with headquarters 
     outside of the Washington, D.C. area--the Institute for 
     Environmental conflict Resolution.
       With a name like that, the institute clearly is not a 
     tourist attraction. What makes it a gem is that it is proving 
     to be remarkably successful at finding solutions to 
     environmental conflicts that otherwise likely would end in 
     lawsuits.

[[Page S2287]]

       The institute is an arm of the Morris K. Duall Foundation. 
     It was proposed by Senator John McCain and created by 
     Congress in 1998. Very few people then realized what McCain 
     apparently did--there was a great need for such an agency.
       Terrence Bracy, chair of the Board of Trustees for the 
     foundation, says the institute expected to handle perhaps 20 
     to 25 cases per year. The institute handled 60 last year and 
     expects to handle even more this year.
       Says Bracy: ``We didn't know how big the market was. We 
     didn't know whether it would work.'' But work it has.
       Now, the institute's original funding will expire their 
     McCain is expected to introduce a bill to reauthorizing the 
     funding probably at the current level.
       It's a good idea, and it would help if Arizona's other 
     congressional delegates, especially Jim Kolbe and Ed Paster, 
     who both represent Southern Arizona, and Senator John Kyl, 
     joined McCain in seeking the funding.
       Bracy knows that the federal government has an immediate 
     stake in mediation. That is because many of the cases being 
     mediated involved governmental agencies, either as agencies 
     potentially being used or as agencies suing others.
       A Unique aspect of the institute's work is that because it 
     is a federal agency, it has status and credibility with other 
     government agencies and with the courts. That makes its 
     medication efforts even more effective.
       The institute has had contracts with the Navy, Fish and 
     Wildlife, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Parks 
     Service, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and others, according to Barcy.
       ``What happens over time,'' Bracy says, ``is we see this 
     thing this tremendous need.'' He is right.
       Tucsonans should recognize what a gem they have in their 
     midst. And Arizonas congressional delegation should get 
     firmly behind McCain's efforts to reauthorize the funding for 
     the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
       It is a government program that even the most anti-
     government conservatives should love.

  Mr. McCAIN. Nothing is more indicative of the support for the 
Institute than the cosponsorship of my two colleagues, Senator Smith 
and Senator Jeffords, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
most environmental matters before the Congress. I thank Senator Smith 
and Senator Jeffords for their critical support, and I look forward to 
working with them to enact this important, bipartisan legislation.
  This is a matter of some urgency as the existing authorization will 
expire in this fiscal year. I look forward to working with the 
cosponsors of this legislation and the rest of my colleagues to move 
this bill forward expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the 
valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict 
Resolution to our Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2064

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and 
     Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.

       Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental and Native American 
     Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute 
     Resolution Fund established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of which--
       ``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs 
     (including not more than $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses); and
       ``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other 
     appropriate arrangements to pay the costs of services 
     provided in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the 
     participation of non-Federal entities (such as State and 
     local governments, tribal governments, nongovernmental 
     organizations, and individuals) in, environmental conflict 
     resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.
                                 ______