[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19828-19837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2000--CONTINUED

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is to recognize the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Robb.
  Mr. GORTON. Is the Interior bill the subject?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Interior bill is the pending business.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, in discussions with the manager of the bill, the 
majority leader, and the Democratic leader, and understanding that the 
matter that I was going to raise would require fairly extensive debate 
and then a vote, thus delaying the departure of Members for the August 
recess--and remembering how fond Members have been of not bothering 
Members of this body when they were the last obstacle between leaving 
on the August recess and making one last vote--I have agreed with the 
distinguished manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, not to 
offer the amendment. He has agreed to recognize me first when the bill 
is next before the Senate.
  With that in mind, and knowing that many of our colleagues are, as I 
speak, heading for the airports, I will not offer the amendment I had 
planned to offer this evening. I will offer it when we next take up the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  I had expected that we would have a vote on a point of order with 
respect to the section of the bill to which he refers tonight. He 
prefers, as is his right, to introduce a motion to strike this 
particular provision. That is, of course, a debatable motion and a 
motion that would be debated with some seriousness.
  The majority leader has said the floor is available to debate 
amendments tonight with the exception of the Senator from Virginia.
  I don't see anyone here who I believe really wants to introduce and 
debate an amendment tonight. We will leave a resolution or any recorded 
vote until Wednesday, September 8.
  One Senator, Mr. Smith from Oregon, I know, wishes to debate the 
Senator from Virginia. If we can find him in the next 5 minutes or so, 
so that there could be a real debate, then I would be delighted to have 
the Senator from Virginia introduce his amendment. But I think we ought 
to have someone on both sides here in order to do it.
  In the meantime, for a few minutes at least, we are searching around 
to see if there are any agreed-upon amendments that I can simply 
introduce and have offered and passed.
  I also notice the presence of the Senator from Wyoming who waited 
patiently this morning with the Senator from Florida for a debate on a 
particular amendment which might possibly end up being determined by a 
voice vote.
  I ask the Senator from Wyoming whether his partner from Florida is 
available this evening.
  Mr. ENZI. We are checking.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a 
quorum while we see whether or not in the next few minutes we can 
gather people together for at least one debate on one amendment before 
we adjourn for the recess.
  With that, for the moment, 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for S. 1292, 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2000.
  As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee, I appreciate the difficult task before the 
distinguished Chairman and Ranking Minority to balance the diverse 
priorities funded in this bill--from our public lands, to major Indian 
programs and agencies, energy conservation and research, and the 
Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done a masterful job 
meeting important program needs within existing spending caps.
  The pending bill provides $14.0 billion in new budget authority and 
$9.15 billion in new outlays to fund Department of Interior agencies, 
including the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Minerals Management Service, and 
the U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the fossil energy 
and energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the 
Smithsonian, and federal arts and humanities agencies.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $14.0 billion in budget 
authority and $14.3 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The Senate 
Subcommittee is $1 million in both budget authority and outlays below 
its revised 302(b) allocation. The bill is $35 million in BA above, and 
$104 million in outlays below, the bill recently passed by the House. 
The bill is $1.1 billion in BA and $0.7 billion in outlays below the 
President's budget request in large measure because the President's 
offsets to increased discretionary spending are not within the 
jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
  I commend the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for bringing 
this important measure to the floor within the 302(b) allocation. I 
urge the adoption of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the document was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  S. 1292, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2000 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 General
                                 purpose    Crime  Mandatory     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority...........     13,922   ......         59     13,981
  Outlays....................     14,250   ......         83     14,333
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........     13,923   ......         59     13,982
  Outlays....................     14,251   ......         83     14,334
1999 level:
  Budget authority...........     13,800   ......         59     13,859
  Outlays....................     13,994   ......         59     14,053

[[Page 19829]]

 
President's request
  Budget authority...........     15,046   ......         59     15,105
  Outlays....................     14,992   ......         83     15,075
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........     13,887   ......         59     13,946
  Outlays....................     14,354   ......         83     14,437
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
             TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...........         (1)  ......  .........         (1)
  Outlays....................         (1)  ......  .........         (1)
1999 level:
  Budget authority...........        122   ......  .........        122
  Outlays....................        256   ......         24        280
President request
  Budget authority...........     (1,124)  ......  .........     (1,124)
  Outlays....................       (742)  ......  .........       (742)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...........         35   ......  .........         35
  Outlays....................       (104)  ......  .........       (104)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

                             materials r&d

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to engage the Chairman in a brief 
colloquy regarding materials research and development efforts funded 
through the energy programs in the Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to join the Ranking Member of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in such a colloquy.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the senior Senator from Washington. Much of the 
progress we have made as an industrialized society has been the result 
of remarkable advances in materials. Improvements in commonplace and 
necessary items--cars, planes, computers, medical equipment--all are 
intricately tied to enhancements to the materials from which they are 
constructed. The same is true of our energy sources and energy 
production. Our power plants--the turbines, boilers and pollution 
controls that supply the electricity that powers our economy--are only 
as effective and reliable as the materials we use to build them.
   Mr. Chairman, you and the Committee have done an admirable job in 
fashioning a budget that points this Nation toward new technologies for 
generating electricity in the 21st Century. The Committee's proposal 
supports a new concept for power generation called ``Vision 21.'' This 
``Vision 21'' initiative excites our imagination over the possibility 
of a pollution-free power plant. But the success of ``Vision 21''--or, 
for that matter, any advances in tomorrow's energy technologies--will 
depend on the development of stronger, more durable, and more reliable 
materials.
  Your support, Mr. Chairman, has been critical in ensuring that 
funding for materials research and development is included in this 
bill. Should the Department of Energy reassess its funding needs and 
priorities in order to move this research effort forward, would you 
give consideration to a request from the Department to redirect a 
portion of its funding to further this effort?
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
his endorsement of this aspect of energy research. As the Senator 
mentioned, we have included a modest increase in materials research in 
the fossil energy budget for this bill above the enacted level. I am 
aware of the excellent research being done in the Senator's home 
state--at the Federal Energy Technology Center--as well as in other 
Energy Department laboratories. It is the intent of the Committee to 
continue to work with the Department of Energy to seek opportunities to 
enhance and strengthen this important area of research in balance with 
the other high-priority research. In this regard, the Committee would 
certainly give careful consideration to such a reprogramming request of 
the Department of Energy.


                   Glen Echo Park construction funds

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise with my colleague from the State of Maryland to 
engage the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the funds included 
in the Senate bill for Glen Echo Park, a unit of the George Washington 
Parkway in Maryland.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to join with the Senior Senator from 
West Virginia in a colloquy with the esteemed members of the Senate 
delegation from Maryland regarding Glen Echo.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman. Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, 
is it the intent of the Appropriations Committee that the funds 
provided in the bill for Glen Echo Park in the construction account of 
the National Park Service be used for rehabilitation and replacement of 
facilities at Glen Echo Park?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, it is.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.
  Mr. SARBANES. Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, is it also the intent 
of the Appropriations Committee that the funds provided for Glen Echo 
Park in the construction account of the National Park Service represent 
the first phase of an estimate $18 million restoration effort, whose 
total costs will be shared equally by the National Park Service, the 
State of Maryland and Montgomery County?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes it is.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.


               operational expenses at our national parks

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a project that 
the Senate has been working on for over two decades, the Congaree Swamp 
National Monument. When this National Monument was established in 1976, 
its purpose was to educate present and future generations. Mr. 
President, through the leadership of the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, we have come a long way. In 
FY'98, funding was provided to build and pave a new entrance road and 
with FY'99 funds, the park's first visitor facility, a 10,300 sq. ft. 
education and administration facility is near completion. The total 
estimated cost for these two projects was $5.814 million. Through a 
partnership with the National Guard, Richland County, and a local non-
profit organization these projects will be built for a total cost of 
$2.16 million. That is a savings of $3.65 million to the American tax 
payer.
  Now that a new administration facility is close to being completed, 
we face the difficult task of providing adequate staffing levels at the 
Congaree National Monument. Increased staffing levels are needed at 
this monument to ensure safety and to provide education to the 
increasing number of park visitors. While I know earmarking operational 
funds for specific park sites is not the best course of action, I do 
want to bring to light the problem that this National Monument will be 
facing in the near future. In 1996, an on-site operations review by 
seven Atlantic Coast Cluster Superintendents concluded that ``the 
[park's] staffing level is inadequate to provide minimum resource 
protection and visitor services''. The report continued with the 
statement that ``the park staff, with considerable support from an 
excellent volunteer cadre, is doing a valiant job of operating the park 
to the best of their ability, but lack the same breadth of resources 
and facilities in other National Park Service sites. * * * '' More than 
300-school group program requests were denied last year because of the 
lack of staff. A large percentage of park visitors leave without 
learning the significance of the park due to the lack of programs. The 
shortage of staff will become even more critical with completion of the 
new infrastructure and increased visitation.
  Mr. GORTON. I am well aware of the shortfall when it comes to 
operation expenses, not only at the Congaree Swamp National Monument, 
but at many National Park Service sites. When crafting the FY 2000 
Interior Appropriations bill, we took staffing needs and operation 
expenses into account and provided $1,355,176,000, which is an increase 
of $69,572,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. With an additional $69.5 million, is there any funding 
provided that would help the Congaree Swamp National Monument in its 
attempt to address the need for additional staff?

[[Page 19830]]


  Mr. GORTON. While the distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
alluded to the problem of earmarking specific operational expenses 
earlier, I will say that of the total amount provided, $27,035,000 is 
for a park operations initiative focused on parks with critical health 
and safety deficiencies, inadequate resources protection capabilities 
and shortfalls in visitor services.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Congress Swamp National Monument is deemed to 
have critical health and safety deficiencies, inadequate resources 
protection capabilities or shortfalls in visitor services, can a 
portion of this $27 million be used to hire additional staff?
  Mr. GORTON. I understand that the National Park Service has already 
targeted these funds for specific park sites.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chairman, I also understand the frustration that arises 
when National Park Service sites are under staffed. In fact, a number 
of National Park Service sites in West Virginia have unmet operational 
and staffing needs. I can assure the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina that if the National Park Service deems the Congress Swamp 
National Monument to be in need of additional staff to carry out its 
stated mission the Committee would give careful consideration to 
providing additional funds in the future to increase staffing levels at 
this site. It is important that visitors to all our National Park sites 
come away with the education and appreciation that these sites deserve.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank both the Chairman and Ranking Member for 
everything they have done in support of our National Parks. I also want 
the National Park Service to work with the Congress Swamp National 
Monument, as well as other park sites, to make sure that they are 
adequately staffed to carry out their stated missions.


                        forest service research

  Mr. BYRD. I rise with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 
from Wisconsin and Vermont to engage the Chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senior Senator from Washington, in a 
colloquy regarding Forest Service research and the intent of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the 
Ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee and with the distinguished 
Senators from Wisconsin and Vermont who also serve on that Subcommittee 
to provide further guidance and clarification as to the Committee 
direction included in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill 
and accompanying report.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chairman, S. 1292, a bill making appropriations for the 
Department of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, includes a net reduction of 
$10,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level (from $197,444,000 
to $187,444,000). Is this the total decrease included in the bill for 
this program?
  Mr. GORTON. While the overall reduction is $10,000,000, within the 
total funding level the Committee has provided increases above the 
fiscal year 1999 level of (1) $1,130,000 for the harvesting and wood 
utilization laboratory in Sitka, Alaska, (2) $2,000,000 for forest 
inventory and analysis, (3) $500,000 for hardwood research and 
development at Purdue University, (4) $600,000 for the development of 
the National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis at the University of 
Montana, and (5) $700,000 for the CROP program. Therefore, other 
activities of the Forest Service research are to be reduced by a total 
of $14,930,000 below the enacted level.
  Mr. BYRD. What guidance has the Committee provided the Forest Service 
with respect to how the Forest Service should reduce its other research 
activities by $14,930,000?
  Mr. GORTON. The report accompanying S. 1292, Senate Report 106-99, 
stresses the concern of the Committee that the research program of the 
Forest Service has lost its focus on its primary mission--forest health 
and productivity--and directs the Forest Service to reduce those areas 
not directly related to enhancing forest and rangeland productivity. 
There are existing research programs outside the agency that have 
greater expertise and objectivity than the Forest Service; especially 
beyond the disciplines of forest health and productivity.
  Mr. BYRD. I am concerned that without further elaboration on this 
matter the Forest Service may misinterpret the Committee's intent and 
take reductions that are not in keeping with the expectations of the 
Committee. It would be useful to expand upon the guidance provided in 
the report in order to avoid any misunderstandings as to the will of 
the Senate.
  Mr. GORTON. Your point is well taken, and I welcome the opportunity 
to provide additional information. The expectations of the Committee 
are that the Forest Service will not provide any increased funding for 
activities not expressly stated as increases in Senate Report 106-99. 
In other words, the Committee has not provided any increased funding 
for the climate change technology initiative or for global climate 
research. Nor has the Committee provided any increased funding in this 
account for Forest Service research on invasive species, fire science, 
watershed science, inventory and monitoring, or recreation, wilderness 
and social science. The Committee also has denied any increases for 
fish and wildlife habitat research programs, for the application of 
mathematical programming and computer simulation tools in national 
forest planning, and for forest health monitoring research.
  Beyond disallowing any of these increases, the Committee expects 
reductions in research funding to be targeted in those research areas 
that are not directly related to its core mission of forest health and 
productivity. In addition to social science and recreation research, 
which are well outside the expertise and core mission of the Forest 
Service, research not directly related to forest health and 
productivity includes, but is not limited to, research on wildlife, 
fish, water, and air sciences; global climate change and wilderness 
research. Beyond these research areas, other funding projects that the 
Committee feels are appropriate for reductions include the 
administrative costs of the Washington office (funded at $11.261 
million in fiscal year 1999) and support for so-called ``national 
commitments'' (funded at $5.744 million in fiscal year 1999).
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman for explaining the expectations of the 
Committee regarding forest service research. Based on this 
clarification, is it the Committee's intent that the Forest Service 
will maintain funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for projects NE-
4557 (Disturbance, Ecology and Management of Oak-Dominated Forests), 
NE-4751 (Forest Engineering Research--Systems Analysis to Evaluate 
Alternative Harvesting Strategies), NE-4353 (Sustainable Forest 
Ecosystems in the Central Appalachians), NE-4701 (Efficient Use of the 
Northern Forest Resources), NE-4803 (Economics of Eastern Forest Use), 
and NE-4805 (Enhancing the Performance and Competitiveness of the U.S. 
Hardwood Industry)? All of these projects are in West Virginia and 
contribute directly to forest health and productivity.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, it is the intent of the Committee that these 
projects be funded for fiscal year 2000 at their fiscal year 1999 
funding levels.
  Mr. LEAHY. In that same vein, is it the Committee's intent that the 
Forest Service will maintain funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for 
project NE-4103 (The Role of Environmental Stress on Tree Growth and 
Development)? This project is conducted at Burlington, Vermont, and 
provides information directly related to forest health and 
productivity.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, it is the intent of the Committee that this project 
be funded for fiscal year 2000 at its fiscal year 1999 funding level.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished Senators 
from Washington and West Virginia have brought up the issue of Forest 
Service research. As they have noted, there is some significant 
research being conducted by the Forest Service, vital to forest health 
management and forest productivity that the Committee supports. Am I 
correct in my understanding that it was the Committee's

[[Page 19831]]

intention in its discussion of Forest Service research in the 
Committee's report to maintain for fiscal year 2000 the forest products 
utilization research and supporting research activities conducted at 
the Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, at the fiscal year 1999 
funding level?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. Cutting these research programs would dramatically decrease 
the Nation's ability to conserve scarce forest resources. It would 
eliminate work on major research issues in western softwood forests and 
in eastern hardwoods. Forest products research defrays forest 
management costs, increases fiber availability to meet the Nation's 
need for wood and fiber, speeds the acceptance of new and more 
efficient utilization technologies, and enhances the development of 
technologies that will restore economic vitality to forest-dependent 
communities. Curbing forest product research would also eliminate 
technical expertise on wood use, particularly in the area of housing.
  Mr. GORTON. I want to thank Senator Kohl for highlighting the vital 
work of the Forest Products Lab and reiterate the Committee's support 
for its research program.


                national park service concession review

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. As the Senator from Washington is aware, the National 
Park Service is responsible for the management of much of the land 
along the Georgetown waterfront in the District of Columbia. As a 
regular visitor to this area, I have been disappointed with the 
condition and appearance of much of the land under the management of 
the National Park Service, particularly the area surrounding Thompson's 
boathouse, the boathouse itself, and the nearby lands that are 
currently used for boat storage. These lands are adjacent to the 
confluence of Rock Creek and Potomac River, making their care and 
maintenance critical to the protection of the watershed.
  I understand that upkeep and maintenance of the boathouse is the 
responsibility of the concessioner that manages the boathouse. Does the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee feel that it would be appropriate for the 
National Park Service to review the concession contract for the 
boathouse, and the performance of the concessioner under that contract, 
to determine whether the concessioner should be compelled to make a 
greater effort to maintain and rehabilitate the boathouse and 
appurtenant lands?
  Mr. GORTON. I agree that such a review would be appropriate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Chairman also agree that, to the extent 
appropriate in meeting its responsibilities and obligations, the 
National Park Service should review the maintenance and rehabilitation 
needs for this area and strongly consider allocating additional 
resources to make any needed improvements?
  Mr. GORTON. In the past several years, the Committee has provided the 
Service with a substantial amount of additional funds of repair and 
rehabilitation of park facilities and properties. I agree that it would 
be appropriate for the Service to consider allocating a portion of 
these resources for the purposes noted by the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee.


                  maggie walker national historic site

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I like to take a few moments to express my 
concern about funding for the Maggie Walker National Historic Site in 
Richmond. While construction funding was included in the budget 
submitted by the National Park Service, funding was not included in the 
Interior appropriations bill before us today. I want to make sure that 
the managers of this legislation are aware of just how important the 
Maggie Walker project is to both the Richmond community and to our 
nation. I would also like to urge them to provide this funding.
  Maggie Walker, who lived in Richmond from her birth in 1867 until her 
death in 1934, epitomized triumph in the face of adversity. In an era 
that glorified male achievement, and in a part of the nation that did 
not encourage African American leadership, she stood out as a very 
successful member of society despite the fact that she was both female 
and African American.
  Ms. Walker both succeeded within the system and pushed for change. 
She established a newspaper. She organized a student strike to protest 
unequal graduation ceremonies. She founded a bank and was the first 
woman in the nation to serve as president of a bank. She was also 
actively involved in founding the Richmond chapter of the NAACP, and 
throughout her life, Maggie Walker championed humanitarian causes.
  The Maggie Walker National Historic Site in Richmond is comprised of 
the Walker home, and several adjacent support buildings. The Walker 
residence itself was built in 1883 and purchased by the Walker family 
in 1904. The residence served as Ms. Walker's home untile the year of 
her death. The Walker family sold the home to the National Park Service 
in 1979. Furnishings throughout the home are original family pieces.
  The National Park Service budget request is necessary to literally 
protect the site from destruction, as well as for safety and historic 
preservation. Funding will support a fire suppression system for the 
main Walker home, and will restore the exteriors of the adjacent 
support buildings. These structures will be used for interpretive and 
education facilities, and for museum storage.
  Mr. WARNER. I join my colleague in this effort. Mr. President, the 
construction funding request by the National Park Service budget would 
help protect and expand the facility to provide a better legacy for our 
children. Educational programs for all children, especially the 
children of Virginia, will serve as a living reminder of the prejudice 
that took place in our country at the turn of the century, and Maggie 
Walker's life will provide a strong role model for present and future 
generations seeking to overcome adversity.
  Maggie Walker urged women to work together to advance their place in 
society. She said, ``If our women want to avoid the traps and snares of 
life, they must band themselves together, organize, acknowledge 
leadership, * * * and work * * * for themselves.'' Maggie Walker also 
stressed the empowerment of minorities in the business field. She 
recognized the ``need of a savings bank, chartered, officered, and run 
by the men and women of this [community] * * * Let us have a bank that 
will take the nickels and turn them into dollars.'' The Maggie Walker 
House symbolizes the persistence of an individual in the face of 
prejudice. For citizens in Richmond, the life of Ms. Walker, and her 
National Historic Site, are a daily inspiration.
  I hope the construction money allotted to the Maggie Walker National 
Historical Site in the National Park budget and approved by the 
President will be provided. I thank my colleagues for considering this 
matter, and I'd appreciate hearing the managers' views on this project.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree with the Senators from Virginia that the life of 
Maggie Walker is indeed an inspiration. While we're facing tough 
funding constraints and did our best to meet National Park Service 
needs in the State of Virginia. I will work with the senior senator 
from West Virginia to see what can be done for the Historic Site.
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator from Washington that this project 
is important, and I will do what I can to the extent that funds become 
available.


               virginia beach minerals management service

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator 
Warner, and I would like to bring to the Managers' attention a serious 
concern involving the City of Virginia Beach and the Minerals 
Management Service of the Department of Interior. In my view, the city 
has been unfairly treated, and I hope we can rectify this matter during 
conference negotiations on the Interior Appropriations Bill.

[[Page 19832]]


  Mr. WARNER. I support the view of my colleague. We wish to briefly 
review the issue for the Managers and explain why we believe that an 
injustice has been done to the City of Virginia Beach.
  For past 25 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction 
with the City, has been working to complete the Sandbridge Beach 
Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, one of the region's 
highest priorities. Early in 1998, several Nor'easters struck the east 
coast and literally demolished Sandbridge Beach, which is a very 
important barrier island that provides protection for the Back Bay 
National Wildlife Refuge. Forty homes were lost to the storms, and more 
than 300,000 cubic yards of protective beach sand were washed away. As 
a result, there was an immediate, critical need to replenish the beach. 
Although the Corps has the responsibility of annual renourishment of 
Sandbridge, as it is a federally-authorized project, the City advanced 
the money to replenish the beach because it was in a state of 
emergency.
  I wish to emphasize that point. Instead of waiting for the Congress 
to appropriate the funds to the Corps, the City spent $8.1 million of 
its own money for the Sandbridge Beach Renourishment, which is an 
option Congress allowed the City under the Water Resources Development 
Act.
  The Minerals Management Service (MMS) became involved when the Corps 
selected a location to mine the sand for Virginia Beach. The location 
selected, the bottom of the ocean three miles off the coast, is an area 
legally designated as the ``outer continental shelf.'' Pursuant to the 
1994 amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSC), the MMS 
negotiates agreements for the right to extract minerals from the outer 
continental shelf. Under this authority, the MMS made a decision, which 
we believe to be both unfair and poor policy, to charge the City of 
Virginia Beach for the sand mined.
  The MMS has the authority to change its decision, and I believe this 
would be the right thing to do. First, with respect to the discretion 
of the MMS, the MMS's own Proposed Policy and Guidelines state that:
  The new law provides that the Secretary may assess a fee. This 
affords discretion not to assess a fee on a case-specific basis.
  Mr. GORTON. So it's clear that the MMS could have opted not to charge 
the City of Virginia Beach?
  Mr. ROBB. That's right. More important, we believe that not charging 
the city would have been the best policy decision. First, the sand paid 
for by the city protected federal land. MMS guidelines state that 
``when OCS sand is used for protection of Federally-owned land (e.g. 
for military bases, national parks, and refuges), a fee would not be 
assessed.'' That is the case in this instance.
  Sandbridge beach is crucial to protecting the Back Bay National 
Wildlife Refuge, which is federally owned. The fragile beach acts as a 
barrier island as the fresh water/brackish environment is three feet 
lower than the ocean adjacent to Sandbridge. If this beach is not 
maintained, an inlet could form, changing the ecology to a salt water 
estuary causing great harm to the Refuge and also disrupting one of the 
potable water sources for the City of Chesapeake. Additionally, the 
project is directly adjacent to the Dam Neck Fleet Combat Training 
Center. The beach at this Center was recently renourished with an 
850,000 cubic year nourishment project. Sandbridge acts as a feeder 
beach for the Dam Neck area and also provides protection to the flank 
of the training Center. In short, the City of Virginia Beach used its 
own funds to protect federal property. Compensation is only fair.
  I'd like to add that fair compensation is something the City of 
Virginia Beach had assumed in good faith would be forthcoming. The City 
acted in an emergency to protect the beach. This beach is a 
Congressionally-authorized project and is being constructed by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers led the city to believe that it would be 
compensated. In fact, the Corps has already used approximately 2 
million of its federal dollars to design the project, is acting as 
construction manager, and considered this renourishment to be the first 
phase of this project authorized by Congress in the 1992 Water 
Resources Development Act.
  In addition, the City of Virginia Beach was assessed a free by the 
MMS for mining the sand used to construct the federal project at 
Sandbridge solely because the City, not the federal government, fronted 
the cost of the construction.
  Mr. GORTON. What is the regulation the MMS used to assess this fee?
  Senator WARNER. There is only a guidance document, which was drafted 
in October 1997 by the MMS under the title ``Proposed Policy and 
Guidelines on Fees for Outer Continental Shelf Resources Used in Shore 
Protection and Restoration Projects''. There have been no further rules 
promulgated since that time, and the City of Virginia Beach is the 
first public body and only public body to be assessed this fee 
subsequent to the issues of the ``Proposed Policy''.
  Mr. GORTON. My understanding is that the purpose for establishing 
fees for mineral extraction from the outer continental shelf was to 
assure that the citizens were compensated for allowing the use of 
public resources by profit-seeking endeavors.
  Mr. ROBB. My colleague is correct. But I wish to stress that this 
case was not a profit-seeking endeavor, but an emergency situation to 
replace sand on a federally-authorized beach that was washed away 
during a severe storm.
  Mr. BYRD. Are there any instances of the MMS waiving the fee?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, there are. The MMS waived the fee for two other 
requests for use of OCS sand for shore protection projects sponsored by 
the corps. One was in Duval County, FL, and the other in Myrtle Beach, 
SC. For these two cases, the MMS ruled that project-related activities 
had progressed to the point that an ``assessment of a fee for the OCS 
sand resources could have delayed or prevented project construction''. 
The MMS therefore determined that waiving the fee would be in the best 
interest of the public in those two cases. In the case of Sandbridge 
Beach, we believe that it was in the best interest of the public for 
the MMS to waive the fee as it not only is a Congressionally authorized 
project, but it also protects a federally owned wildlife refuge, the 
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. GORTON. What was the nature of the fee assessed to the City by 
the MMS?
  Mr. ROBB. The City of Virginia Beach was assessed a fee of $0.18 per 
cubic yard, and they were forced to enter into a lease agreement with 
MMS before being allowed to obtain critical sand for the emergency 
beach erosion project. The money paid in MMS fees, which totaled 
$198,000, would have allowed the City to place an additional 40,000 
cubic yards of sand on this badly eroded beach.
  In conclusion, we hope our colleagues agree that the MMS should have 
utilized their option to waive the fee for sand replenishment in this 
emergency situation, and as a result, the City should be reimbursed for 
protection Sandbridge Beach. Not only did the MMS assess a fee on a 
federally-authorized project which protects federal land, but they took 
advantage of the City during an emergency situation. Under the time 
constraints the City had no other alternative to find sand elsewhere, 
and was forced to pay the fee. It is for these reasons that my 
colleague and I believe that the MMS has an obligation to reimburse the 
City of Virginia Beach for this incorrectly assessed fee.
  Mr. GORTON. I am sympathetic to our colleague' request. I am also 
aware that language authorizing repayment of the fee charged to the 
City of Virginia Beach is included in this year's Water Resources 
Development Act. We are facing very tough funding constraints this 
year, but if the senior Senator from West Virginia agrees, we'll work 
together to help the city if possible.
  Mr. BYRD. I am also sympathetic to the request, and I will support 
that effort.

[[Page 19833]]


  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Washington and the Senator from 
West Virginia. Senator Warner and I want to reemphasize that this is a 
situation of basic fairness, and action is needed to correct an 
injustice imposed by the federal government. We ask that if funds 
become available during the House-Senate Conference, that the Managers 
provide $198,000 to reimburse the City of Virginia Beach. We thank our 
colleagues.


                           cumberland island

  Mr. CLELAND. I rise to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding Cumberland 
Island National Seashore, which is located just off the coast of 
Georgia. As Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd are aware, the Congress 
recently provided funding for an important land acquisition for 
Cumberland Island, which will ensure the protection of lands on 
Cumberland Island for generations to come. In conjunction with this 
land acquisition, I worked with the National Park Service, residents of 
the island, and members of the historic and environmental communities 
to reach a unanimous agreement on the management of Cumberland Island 
National Seashore. The agreement provides a framework for the proper 
management of the cultural and wilderness resources on the island. I 
strongly supported the development of this agreement and am committed 
to ensuring that this agreement is followed regarding the management of 
Cumberland Island National Seashore. Do the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee share my strong support for 
the implementation of the agreement?
  Mr. GORTON. I was pleased that the Georgia delegation, the 
Administration and a variety of local interests were able to reach 
agreement with regard to the preservation of lands and historic 
properties on Cumberland Island, and am pleased that we were able to 
provide a considerable amount of funds to implement the first phase of 
the agreement. Your leadership has been instrumental in this matter, 
and I appreciate your efforts to provide for the lands and management 
of the Cumberland Island National Seashore. I look forward to working 
with you to the extent additional funds are necessary to implement the 
agreement, recognizing the difficult fiscal limitations under which the 
Committee must operate.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman and would support Congressional 
efforts to provide additional compliance actions regarding the 
agreement, if necessary. Your involvement in Cumberland Island has been 
critical in protecting and preserving these precious resources in a 
manner that balances National and local interests.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senators for their support and kind words.


        vermont agency of transportation electric vehicle lease

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Subcommittee on Interior, 
and particularly Chairman Gorton, for his excellent work on the FY 2000 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I would especially 
like to thank the Chairman for encouraging the Department of Energy to 
consider the Vermont Agency of Transportation electric vehicle lease 
proposal. I would just like to clarify that the committee's 
recommendation refers to a request for $400,000 from the Vermont Agency 
of Transportation to develop an electric vehicle program, including the 
purchase and demonstration of electric vehicles, the creation of 
charging stations, reports documenting vehicle use, and the collection 
of experiential data, for the State of Vermont and its municipalities.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his kind remarks. 
Within available funds, the Committee encourages the Department of 
Energy to provide funding for the Vermont Agency of Transportation 
Vehicle Lease Program.


                ponca tribe of nebraska user population

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am concerned the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska 
funding for health services is not adequate to provide these services 
to tribal members. As the Chairman may know, the Ponca Tribe was 
terminated in 1962 and restored as a federally recognized Tribe in 
1990. At the time of restoration, the Tribe's user population was 
estimated at 654 and was allocated a $1.2 million budget.
  In January 1998, the Ponca Tribe established the Ponca Health and 
Wellness Center in Omaha, Nebraska. This clinic provides quality 
medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and community outreach health services 
to members of all federally recognized Tribes. As a result of this new 
clinic, the user population has increased to over 2000 users without a 
budget increase to address the larger population. Does the 
distinguished Senator from Washington agree this problem must be 
addressed?
  Mr. GORTON. I understand the concerns of the Senator from Nebraska 
regarding the need for resources to address the increase in user 
population for the Ponca Tribe Health and Wellness Center. It is 
important the Ponca and other Tribes be able to continue providing 
quality health services for its members. I believe the IHS should 
examine this issue and identify ways to help the Ponca and other 
Tribes, which have experienced unusual increases in user populations.
  Mr. KERREY. Clearly, the Ponca Tribe needs resources in order to meet 
the health needs of an increased user population. It is my hope the 
Indian Health Service (IHS) will address this unusual increase with its 
resources. I encourage the IHS to provide increased funding to any 
Tribe that has experienced an increase in the user population of 50 
percent or more over fiscal years 1996-99 to the extent possible within 
existing resources.


          mari sandoz cultural center $450,000 funding request

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished floor 
manager a question.
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly. I am happy to respond to my colleague from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I realize that this year, you and Ranking Member Byrd are 
facing a challenging appropriations season with tight budgetary 
constraints. I appreciate your hard work and all that you have done. 
However, I wanted to bring to your attention a very important project 
for the State of Nebraska, especially the western part of the state, 
the Mari Sandoz Cultural Center at Chadron State College in Chadron, 
Nebraska. Mari Sandoz wrote extensively about the Great Plains--about 
fur traders and homesteaders, about cattlemen and grangers; about the 
Cheyenne and Oglala Sioux. She captured in her writings a special time 
and place. Chadron State College and the Mari Sandoz Society are 
developing a cultural center to preserve, protect and exhibit a 
collection that is associated with Mari Sandoz's life and work. I had 
hoped that we would be able to find $450,000 to assist with this 
project.
  Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's interest in this project and 
its importance to Nebraska's history and heritage. We were unable to 
include funding for one of the accounts where this project might be 
supported. However, I will work with the Senator to see if we can 
identify funds for this project in the future.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chairman for his assistance. I appreciate the 
consideration of this important project, and I know the people of 
Nebraska, especially western Nebraska, will also be more appreciative.


             forest service reconstruction and maintenance

  Mr. KOHL. I rise to engage the Chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, Senator 
Gorton, in a colloquy on an item in the Forest Service budget which 
needs some clarification. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification 
submitted by the administration included $300,000 for planning and 
design of a new facility at the Forest Products Lab in Madison, WI, to 
accommodate a move of the Forest Service's regional office from 
Milwaukee to Madison. However, on April 15, 1999, during a hearing in 
the Appropriations Committee on the Forest Service budget Mike Dombeck, 
the Chief of the Forest Service, reiterated what the Forest Service has 
told me in the past: The

[[Page 19834]]

Forest Service has withdrawn the proposal to move its Milwaukee office. 
The idea of moving the regional office from Milwaukee first came up in 
response to concerns about the rent in Milwaukee. Since then General 
Services Administration (GSA) has indicated that by fiscal year 2000, 
the rent in Milwaukee will be reduced by 18 percent, eliminating the 
need for the move.
  During the Appropriations Committee's markup, we inadvertently 
included $300,000 for the proposed move in the Forest Service's 
reconstruction and maintenance budget. Since the Forest Service and GSA 
have confirmed that the move will not and should not go forward, the 
Committee is directing the Forest Service to use the $300,000 in this 
account at the Forest Products Lab to expand the planned heat, 
ventilation and air conditioning work already scheduled to occur at the 
lab. The funding should be used to replace air conditioning equipment 
for buildings 33 and 34. The current equipment is more than 30 years 
old and is in poor condition, lacking automated controls so overtime 
staffing is needed to operate the equipment on weekends. Replacement of 
the air conditioning chillers in these buildings will be more energy 
efficient and will reduce overtime costs.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin raising this 
issue. Leaving the regional office in Milwaukee will save the Forest 
Service $4.5 million slated for future years spending to build a new 
facility in Madison. The Committee agrees that using the $300,000 in 
the fiscal year 2000 budget to improve the HVAC systems at the Forest 
Products Lab is a far better use of these funds.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from Washington's courtesy and 
look forward to working with him in conference to ensure that this 
money is spent as the Committee intended.


              grand staircase-escalante national monument

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there are several provisions in this bill 
that result directly from the establishment of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. First, we have identified $300,000 within 
the amount allocated for the monument planning and decision making 
process. In FY 1999, $500,000 was provided to the two counties, and we 
anticipate that there will be funds available from the fee 
demonstration program that could return them to the FY 99 level.
  Additionally, we provided $100,000 to implement the ``Garfield-Kane 
County Partnership Action Plan.'' This action plan is the result of a 
process that began last year to help the counties and communities that 
have been most impacted by the monument designation. This is not a 
welfare program; this is to help them with reorganization leading to 
economic self-sufficiency. The Department of Interior, to its credit, 
has supported this effort and provided funds for a conference that was 
held in Kane County earlier this year. The conference was mediated by 
the Sonoran Institute. The conference report is the basis for the 
funding.
  The regional entities have formed a planning commission, the 
Partnership Task Force, and are talking with the Utah Five County 
Association of Governments (AOG) to establish a new and independent 
entity within that organization, which will provide administrative 
support and organization. Direction will come from a board composed of 
elected county and city officials from Kane and Garfield Counties and 
from portions of the Arizona Counties (Coconino and Mohave), which are 
north and west of the Colorado River. This also includes the Kaibab 
Paiute Indian Reservation.
  It is my understanding that the BLM will fund the Partnership Task 
Force through the Five County AOG and will cooperate in developing 
recommendations for the partnership action plan and specific programs. 
I would ask the Chairman if it is his expectation that the agency will 
periodically report on the progress being made?
  Mr. GORTON. It is, indeed, my expectation that the Department will 
work with the organization in getting started and will provide a 
progress report after ninety days, and a full report at the end of the 
fiscal year.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his support.


                     everglades funding assurances

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, 
Mr. Graham, to address briefly the issue of Everglades restoration and 
land acquisition funding. We had joined with the President in 
requesting slightly more than $100 million for land acquisition in 
Everglades National Park, state assistance grants, infrastructure 
investment, and modified water deliveries to the Park and Florida Bay. 
This funding is critical to keep the restoration effort on budget, on 
schedule, and consistent with the Congress' commitment in 1997 to fully 
fund Everglades restoration.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, following on the comments of my colleague 
from Florida, the Committee did not see fit to appropriate the full 
amount of these requested funds due to several concerns outlined in the 
Committee's report. First, the report addressed the $40 million in 
unobligated balances at the Department of Interior that have already 
been appropriated by Congress for the Everglades restoration effort. 
Further, the Committee echoed concerns raised in a recent GAO report 
regarding a more expedient dispute resolution mechanism and an 
integrated strategic plan. I would ask the distinguished Chairman of 
the Subcommittee if this--in general--reflects the concerns of the 
Subcommittee as outlined in the report?
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct, I also note that the Subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation was more than $1.1 billion below the Presidents 
request, which compelled the Subcommittee to provide lower funding 
levels for land acquisition in order to protect core operating 
programs.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the reservations of the Subcommittee are 
valid ones and my colleague from Florida and I are willing to be 
helpful however we can in addressing these concerns. I would say to the 
Chairman that we are making progress on these issues. The Department of 
the Interior tells me it is working closely with the State of Florida 
to remove the barriers to allocating the unobligated land acquisition 
and restoration balances. The Department assures these funds will be 
obligated by the end of this fiscal year.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, let me follow on by saying the Department 
further assures us they are making good progress on the concerns raised 
by the GAO report and echoed by the Committee. In fact, on July 1 of 
this year, the administration released the Everglades Restudy--which is 
an extremely detailed 20-year plan for restoring the Everglades--to the 
Congress.
  Mr. MACK. I would ask the Chairman of the Subcommittee if he would be 
willing--given the movement toward resolving his concerns since release 
of the Committee's report--if he would be willing to work with us in 
Conference to increase the overall Everglades funding from the levels 
currently in the bill?
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for their comments. 
Clearly the Everglades restoration effort is an important national 
priority. I can anticipate that funding for these accounts will likely 
be discussed further during the Conference with the House. I can assure 
my friends that I will take a close look at actions taken by the 
Department in response to the Committee's concerns and will work to 
ensure the funding levels are adequate to keep the restoration effort 
on track for the next fiscal year.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague for his response and assurances on 
this important issue. I would also like to mention briefly the funding 
level for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. It is my 
understanding the Task Force's funding has been kept steady at $800,000 
since it was statutorily authorized in 1996. I want to bring this 
matter to the Chairman's attention because of the restraints this low 
funding ceiling is placing on the Task Force's ability to carry out its 
mission in South Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would continue by adding that the Task Force is the 
entity responsible of implementing the recommendations of the Committee 
with

[[Page 19835]]

respect to the dispute resolution mechanism and the strategic plan. 
Further, cost of living adjustments are forcing staff layoffs and 
seriously eroding the Task Force's ability to do its job. I would ask 
the Chairman to consider increasing the Task Force's budget to the 
requested $1.3 million during the Conference with the House.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my friends from Florida for bringing this matter 
to my attention. I will take a look at the funding levels for the Task 
Force as we proceed to Conference.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my friend from Washington and yield the floor.


                           trout brook valley

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few remarks on an 
amendment I have at the desk. The amendment, which I intend to 
withdraw, would provide a $2 million increase in funding for the Parks 
Service Account. This money would be used to help a dedicated coalition 
of Connecticut citizens, conservation groups, and local and state 
government acquire 668 acres in the Trout Brook Valley.
  The Trout Brook Valley, like much of the remaining open space in 
Connecticut, is currently under threat of development and the Aspetuck 
Land Trust is trying to save it. They are not asking the Federal 
Government to foot the entire bill in the effort to preserve this 
countryside for the enjoyment of future generations. Far from it, the 
locally-led effort to save Trout Brook Valley is convinced that they 
can and will raise $10.5 million of the $12.5 million dollars that the 
property will cost. My amendment would have provided Federal matching 
funds equal to less than one-sixth of the total cost of acquiring this 
land for conservation.
  I am deeply disappointed that the current Interior Appropriations 
bill allocates no funding to the stateside portion of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. The Trout Brook Valley project represents an 
excellent example of why we need to appropriate adequate resources for 
stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 
tragically has gone unfunded since 1995. I am encouraged to learn, 
however, that an agreement to appropriate funds to the stateside LWCF 
account is currently under discussion. Am I correct in that 
understanding?
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct. I point out that this project is not 
authorized as a federal acquisition project. In addition, stateside 
Land and Water Conservation Fund projects are determined at the State 
level, so if funds for state grants are included in the bill, it still 
will not be possible to secure dedicated funding for this project.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I understand that, and respectfully withdraw my 
amendment.


    land acquisition and state assistance for national park service

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, on 
a matter relating to the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account 
for the National Park Service.
  I was pleased to see that the Committee chose to provide funding for 
the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in this account. One of eight 
National Scenic Trails in the United States, the Ice Age Trail meanders 
through 31 Wisconsin counties, generally following the terminal 
moraine. As I noted in my request to the Subcommittee, the depth of 
commitment to the Ice Age Trail in the state of Wisconsin is 
impressive. Many volunteers, local governments, and private 
organizations have contributed to the development of the trail. The 
state of Wisconsin has also provided essential matching funds to the 
trail's many partners. One of the most compelling aspects of this 
request for funding was the commitment from the State of Wisconsin to 
match the federal funding we are providing for Ice Age Trail land 
acquisition.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee notes the 
commitment of partners like the state of Wisconsin to provide matching 
funds for the establishment of our national trails when we make our 
determinations for funding. The Committee urges partners to honor their 
commitments as the prospects for future appropriations may be looked 
upon more favorably.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Washington for his remarks.


                   weatherization assistance program

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise in the hope that the Chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Alaska, will engage in 
a colloquy with myself, Senator Jeffords and the Chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington, on 
the Weatherization Assistance Program provision in the bill passed by 
the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the other body passed its version of 
the FY 2000 Interior appropriations legislation on July 14. That bill 
included a provision mandating States to provide a 25 percent state 
cost share, or state match, in order to receive their FY 2000 
Weatherization Assistance grants.
  Despite the potential ramifications of implementing a State match, no 
hearings have been held, and no input has been solicited from the 
States to determine if cost sharing is realistic or necessary for this 
program.
  As many Senators are aware, state legislatures across the country 
simply cannot meet this deadline with such short notice. In fact, some 
legislatures are about to adjourn and will not meet again for another 
year or even two.
  Currently, the only data we have regarding the impact of the proposed 
State match comes from an informal survey undertaken this month by the 
National Association of State Community Services Programs; it indicates 
that 25 states definitely cannot provide matching funds in FY 2000; 
another five large states are uncertain whether they can meet the 
requirement, and less than ten States currently provide state-
appropriated funds to Weatherization and would be able to comply 
immediately.
  It seems to me that consideration of such a fundamental change in the 
distribution of state Weatherization Assistance grants falls squarely 
under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee. Wouldn't the 
Chairman agree?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is certainly true. The Committee currently has no 
analysis of the need for such a cost share nor of the state-by-state or 
national impact of such a requirement.
  Although the State of Alaska has established a state ``Trust Fund'' 
to contribute a significant amount to the State's Weatherization 
efforts, it would be imperative that we ascertain the ability of other 
States to undertake such commitments before deciding on a change that 
could bring an end to Weatherization services throughout the nation.
  Of course, a federal program that can leverage non-federal funds and 
attract other partners always has a stronger case for appropriations. 
Is the Senator from New Mexico informed as to whether any states have 
many such resources in their Weatherization program?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am told that, nationally, Weatherization leverages 
about a 50 percent add-on from non-federal sources--but there is no 
study of this and it probably varies widely among states. In fact, the 
same informal state survey I just mentioned reported that many of the 
states have private partnerships between the utilities and the local 
community action Weatherization programs, brokered in many instances by 
the Weatherization programs, and that these partnerships are growing as 
utility restructuring moves forward. Many building owners in low-income 
communities also chip in for these services.
  Further, I am told many states have excellent coordination among the 
federal low-income energy and the low-income housing and community 
development programs. However, the fact is that most of the states 
reviewed the terms of the match in the House bill and said they don't 
believe these public-private efforts would qualify under that 
terminology.
  I believe we would really have to look into any requirement that 
didn't encourage private investment in these local programs; I hope the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee would concur in opposing 
the

[[Page 19836]]

inclusion of language authorizing a State match for Weatherization in 
the Interior appropriations bill or Conference Report.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, the Weatherization Assistance Program is 
an investment. Its success is unparalleled--as a way to upgrade 
housing, increase energy efficiency, and assist low-income Americans.
  Weatherization enables very low-income people--including families 
with children, older Americans, and individuals with disabilities--to 
experience savings of 30 percent on their energy bills. For every 
federal dollar invested in this program, $2.40 in energy, health, 
safety, housing, and other measured benefits are achieved.
  The mandate that States provide a 25 percent state cost share 
contained in the bill passed by the other body may endanger states' use 
of this program. This provision causes great concern to me and other 
Senators of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I co-chair 
with Senator Moynihan. Such a fundamental change in the distribution of 
state Weatherization Assistance grants falls squarely under the 
jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly agree that if we're going to make any 
major changes to the program, we need to do so in a way that encourages 
more private investment and that we had better make sure we consult 
with the Governors and utilities and get it right.
  I would certainly oppose making such fundamental changes in the 
pending bill. I hope the floor managers can give us assurance that the 
Senate Conferees will convey our concerns to their House counterparts 
and reject this language in Conference. I would like to ask the 
Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee if the Senate 
conferees on this legislation will keep in mind the concerns of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee in mind and move to strike the 
House language?
  Mr. GORTON. As the distinguished Chairman is aware, the bill before 
us does not include any language requiring a state match. I will 
certainly keep the objections of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition in mind as we move 
to conference.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chairman.


                           marbled murrelets

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last year, we enacted the Intestate 90 
Land Exchange Act authorizing a large land exchange in Washington 
between Plum Creek Timber Company and the Forest Service. The land 
exchange was scheduled under the Act to be closed on July 19. Just 
prior to closure, however, Plum Creek discovered Marbled Murrelets on 
two sections of Forest Service land scheduled under the Act to be 
transferred to Plum Creek.
  The discovery of Marbled Murrelets occurred after the appraisal was 
completed and signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Plum Creek and 
the Forest Service agree the two sections of land containing murrelets 
should remain in federal ownership. The legislation, however, did not 
contemplate or provide for the deletion of these lands or for the need 
to adjust the appraisal after it had been approved by the Secretary. We 
are working with the Forest Service and Plum Creek on a solution to 
this problem.
  The land exchange is vital because it substantially resolves a 
decades old conflict created by the checkerboard ownership pattern in 
central Washington. It places into public ownership thousands of acres 
of mature timber and essential wildlife habitat, dozens of miles of 
streams and riparian corridors and some of the most popular 
recreational lands in Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague in his remarks about 
the Plum Creek exchange. We worked very hard last year to enact this 
exchange. I also share a concern about the implications of the 
discovery or marbled murrelets on the lands scheduled to be exchanged 
to Plum Creek. I agree these lands should be left in federal ownership. 
I would like to ask Senator Gorton does one senator understand 
legislation is needed to allow the Forest Service to keep the two 
sections in question?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. The Forest Service and Plum Creek have been working 
on an amendment that would allow these two sections to be dropped from 
the exchange and for the appraisal to be adjusted accordingly. It is my 
intention to continue to work with the Forest Service and Plum Creek to 
draft an amendment to include in the conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. I look forward to continuing to 
work with you, the Forest Service, Plum Creek, and other interested 
parties as the legislation is developed.


                        THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, 
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Interior 
Appropriations for their hard work. As they both know, last year I 
sponsored the authorizing legislation for the National Underground 
Railroad Network to Freedom. This new law directs the National Park 
Service to review hundreds of Underground Railroad sites in Ohio and 
around the country, identify the most notable locations, and produce 
and disseminate appropriate educational materials. I believe the 
history of the Underground Railroad is a part of the American story 
that we should be proud of. Last year, the Chairman and Ranking Member 
worked with me to fully fund the program in Fiscal Year 1999. I made a 
similar request this year. I would like to ask for clarification of 
some language contained in the Committee Report. Specifically, the 
Committee provided $1,245,891,000 to the National Park Service for park 
management. Is it the Chairman's intent that this figure includes 
$500,000 for the implementation of the National Underground Railroad 
Network to Freedom?
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleague from Ohio. The Senator is correct. 
The funding for National Park Service park management will fully fund 
the implementation of the National Underground Railroad Network to 
Freedom.
  Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate the clarification from my colleague from 
Washington and thank him and Senator Byrd for their continued support 
for this program.


    benjamin franklin national memorial disabled access improvements

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak about 
the need for the federal government to share in the cost of much-needed 
disabled access improvements at the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial 
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As my colleagues may know, this National 
Memorial was designated as a National Park Service Affiliated Area by 
Public law 92-551.
  The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is located in the rotunda of 
The Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
The Memorial Hall was opened in 1938 and features a 20-foot high marble 
statue of Ben Franklin sculpted by James Earle Fraser, as well as many 
of Franklin's original possessions.
   Mr. President, I was very appreciative earlier this year when the 
distinguished Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, 
joined me in a visit to The Franklin Institute to see first-hand the 
need for disabled access improvements in the National Memorial Hall. I 
believe that he saw for himself that the 1938 design of the facility 
does not lend itself to easy access for anyone in a wheelchair or with 
other disabilities. The legacy of Benjamin Franklin is one that should 
be treasured and understood by all Americans, which is why I salute the 
Franklin Institute for embarking on a major capital development 
campaign to pay for, among other things, some of the costs associated 
with these renovations.
  To date, the Institute has spent over $6 million of its own funds in 
the ongoing maintenance of the Memorial Hall. Since Congress bestowed 
national memorial status on this facility, and since it is important to 
ensure that all Americans, regardless of physical ability, can benefit 
from learning more about Benjamin Franklin, I want to encourage 
Chairman Gorton to continue working with me to providing funding for 
this purpose. I am advised that in Fiscal Year 2000, $1 million in 
federal

[[Page 19837]]

funds would be a significant first step toward meeting the anticipated 
$6 million cost of rehabilitating and updating the National Memorial 
and its exhibits.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, for his comments. He has truly shown leadership with 
respect to the funding needs of the Benjamin Franklin National 
Memorial, and I was pleased to participate in a tour of this facility 
when I visited Philadelphia this Spring.
  I commend The Franklin Institute for seeking nonfederal sources of 
funding to defray a substantial portion of the anticipated costs of the 
improvements. As my colleagues are aware, we face tight budget 
constraints in this legislation. I will continue working with my 
colleague from Pennsylvania in the coming weeks, however, in an effort 
to identify sources of funding that may be available and appropriate 
for this purpose.


                rehabilitation of thaddeus stevens hall

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have also sought recognition to 
express my support for a project of historical, academic, and economic 
importance at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. I believe 
that this project is a perfect candidate for funding under the Save 
America's Treasures grant program.
  Stevens Hall, named for prominent Gettysburg citizen Thaddeus 
Stevens, was the fourth major building erected on the campus of 
Gettysburg College, in 1867. The building currently serves as a 
dormitory for undergraduate students. Renovation of the structure is 
necessary to preserve the building's exterior and modernize the 
electrical and fire prevention systems.
  Gettysburg College plans to restore and rehabilitate Thaddeus Stevens 
Hall and transform the building into a center for the study of history 
and the Civil War era. Stevens Hall will eventually house the College's 
Civil War Institute. Located adjacent to Eisenhower House and just 
blocks from the Gettysburg National Military Park, this project will 
not only restore a distinguished example of 19th century architecture, 
but will attract students of the Civil War nationwide. The College has 
already committed substantial resources to this important project, 
securing $2.5 million in private funding for preservation work.
  I understand that the committee did not include funding for the Save 
America's Treasures program; however, federal funding is crucial to the 
timely completion of restoration work on this historical structure. I 
urge the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, to continue to 
work with me to identify appropriate federal funding for this important 
preservation initiative.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his comments, 
and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this request. I am 
well aware of the importance he places on this project, and more 
broadly, on his involvement in Gettysburg. I will work with my friend 
from Pennsylvania to fund the restoration and rehabilitation of 
Thaddeus Stevens Hall.


                           amendment no. 1576

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to H.R. 2466, 
the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill, to authorize the Disabled 
Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal 
land in the District of Columbia to honor all disabled American 
veterans. This legislation is not controversial, costs nothing, and 
deserves immediate consideration and passage.
  As a Nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to all Americans who have 
worn their country's uniform in the defense of her core ideals and 
interests. We honor their service with holidays, like Veterans Day and 
Memorial Day, and with memorials, including the Vietnam Wall and the 
Iwo Jima Memorial. But nowhere in Washington can be found a material 
tribute to those veterans whose physical or psychological well-being 
was forever lost to a sniper's bullet, a landmine, a mortar round, or 
the pure terror of modern warfare.
  To these individuals, we owe a measure of devotion beyond that 
accorded those who served honorably but without permanent damage to 
limb or spirit. For these individuals, a memorial in Washington, D.C. 
would stand as testament to the sum of their sacrifices, and as proof 
that the country they served values their contribution to its cause.
  We cannot restore the health of those Americans who incurred a 
disability as a result of their military service. It is within our 
power, however, to authorize a memorial that would clearly signal the 
Nation's gratitude to all whose disabilities serve as a living reminder 
of the toll war takes on its victims.
  Under the terms of this legislation, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE 
Memorial Foundation would be solely responsible for raising the 
necessary funding. Our amendment explicitly requires that no Federal 
funds be used to pay any expense for the memorial's establishment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Daschle, Coverdell, 
Cleland, and Kerrey in support of this legislation. America's disabled 
veterans, of whom Senator Cleland himself is one of our most 
distinguished, deserve a lasting tribute to their sacrifice. They 
honored us with their service; let us honor them with our support 
today.


                           ITM SYNGAS PROGRAM

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, The 
Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for adding 
$1.4 million to the Department of Energy's competitively awarded, cost-
shared ITM Syngas program, specifically the ``Engineering Development 
of Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems for Converting Natural Gas to 
Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas for Liquid Transportation Fuels'' project. 
This important high-risk, high-impact gas-to-liquids research and 
development project will convert domestic remote and off-shore natural 
gas to synthesis gas, resulting in lower cost production and cleaner 
alternative fuels. This program also promises to create new markets for 
U.S. domestic resources and extend the useful life of the Alaskan North 
Slope oil fields and the trans-Alaskan pipeline system.
  The ITM Syngas research and development effort is a complex, high 
risk undertaking by the Department of Energy and its industry, national 
laboratory and university partners. As with any complex technological 
undertaking, the Department of Energy and its ITM Syngas team have had 
to increase the scope of the initial phase of the program and add a 
university partner to ensure the project's long-term success.
  This $1.4 million is in addition to the budget request for fiscal 
year 2000 of $2.5 million that is in the Fossil Energy, Gas, Emerging 
Processing Technology Applications and the Energy Supply, Hydrogen 
Research program. The total DOE funding for the ITM Syngas program in 
fiscal year 2000 is $3.9 million.
  The addition of $1.4 million in fiscal year 2000 will allow 
approximately $600,000 to be allocated to the first phase of this 
project to fund activities that could not have been anticipated when 
the program commenced last year. The remaining $800,000 will allow the 
second phase of the ITM Syngas to be accelerated, allowing future costs 
to be avoided.
  This program brings together the Department of Energy, U.S. 
industry--large and small--our national laboratories and research 
universities. Again, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for 
his efforts to ensure that from the earliest phases of this important 
research and development effort, ITM Syngas is a success.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there do not seem to be any amendments to 
the bill that are ripe for debate and for disposition at this point.
  Did the Senator from Virginia have any further comments?
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his 
offer. Given the absence of other Senators who I know want to debate 
this particular issue, I look forward to resuming that debate when the 
Senate returns to session on September 8.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I don't think there is any further 
business in connection with the interior appropriations bill.




                          ____________________