[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14655-14685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 3798

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3798.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, 
                            with an offset)

       On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and 
     insert ``$769,937,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $2,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from 
     unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development 
     account and $8,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of a 
     proportionate amount from each other account for which this 
     Act makes funds available for travel, supplies, and printing 
     expenses: Provided, That $172,000,000 shall be for use in 
     energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of 
     Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such 
     sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: 
     $146,000,000''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional 
$8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance 
Program.
  Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably 
high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in 
the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices.
  Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this 
issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing 
domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up 
our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative 
fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, 
increasing the supply of energy.
  In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage 
OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are 
asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is 
not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, 
it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter 
heating season.
  All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are 
neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the 
heating market--and that is demand.
  The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of 
demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we 
are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign 
energy.
  As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also 
start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically 
involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At 
the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable 
people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, 
individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to 
huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is 
the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the 
very hot parts of this country in the summertime.
  In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where 
there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because 
they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they 
had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying 
exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms 
of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program 
that cuts across the entire country.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of 
over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million 
American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local 
funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type 
of assistance for American homes.
  Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I 
was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We 
went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a 
contractor was able to blow in insulation between the walls; they were 
able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to 
ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased 
dramatically.
  This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had 
come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. 
The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children--
all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His 
mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from 
Alzheimer's.
  This is typically the type of families--low-income families, 
struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through 
college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent 
program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income 
families.
  Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their 
income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four 
times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the 
households that are served by this weatherization program have annual 
incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works 
for these individual families.
  Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 
jobs throughout the country have been created because of this 
weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting 
energy.
  I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side 
complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase 
production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if 
we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the 
boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a 
comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country.
  In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated 
by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to 
about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs 
that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s.
  Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe 
this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency 
of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 
2000.
  That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure.

[[Page 14656]]

  If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, 
to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits 
that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least 
increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional 
families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, 
families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of 
assistance.
  Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, 
talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it 
reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, 
``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a 
position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many.
  I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are 
responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had 
hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. 
That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of 
$135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply 
seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. 
The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income 
families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with 
increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for 
energy, particularly petroleum.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this 
amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues.
  If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of 
this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, 
came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to 
properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the 
tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The 
Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that 
proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to 
increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any 
other.
  I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this 
bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments 
that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of 
money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes 
and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of 
money to support the functions of the Government of the United States 
itself.
  I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting 
this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in 
our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our 
Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the 
Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As 
I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function 
and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public 
lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that 
are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters 
later.
  I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode 
Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several 
years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year 
during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. 
But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come 
out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive 
responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but 
there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less 
for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. 
There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less 
for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency 
which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper 
and efficient use of energy.
  With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing 
to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of 
allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars 
with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which 
to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 
million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of 
a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from 
Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I 
simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the 
Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, 
the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the 
United States. That is from where this match comes.
  A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, 
let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let 
them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for 
this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to 
have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program 
evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put 
up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is 
primarily their responsibility.
  As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. 
The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end 
up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger 
allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its 
work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program 
in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to 
take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take 
it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take 
it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is 
precisely what this does.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many 
years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a 
great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we 
would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided 
an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money 
to put back into the budget.
  We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our 
cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming 
out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they 
could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn 
down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking 
about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't 
have that luxury.
  So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we 
are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily 
absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile 
and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring 
that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the 
Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going 
to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into 
very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I 
believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point.
  Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and 
sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I 
don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a 
park being shut down by the loss

[[Page 14657]]

of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important 
program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. 
The appropriations bill for military construction included many other 
matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to 
people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every 
bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the 
first place.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage 
of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match 
for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say 
this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut 
the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the 
board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our 
national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a 
program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more 
rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary 
responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we 
did.
  Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger 
allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't 
think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't 
matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this 
is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the 
rest of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3800

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. 
     Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3800.

  Mr. THOMAS. 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 provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to 
 conduct a study on the management of conflicting activities and uses)

       On page 125, line 25 strike ``$58,209,000'' through page 
     126, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof ``$57,809,000, of 
     which $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban 
     Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et 
     seq.).

     SEC.   . MANAGEMENT STUDY OF CONFLICTING USES.

       (a) Snow Machine Study.--Of funds made available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for the operation of National 
     Recreation and Preservation Programs of the National Park 
     Service $400,000 shall be available to conduct a study to 
     determine how the National Park Service can:
       (1) minimize the potential impact of snow machines and 
     properly manage competing recreational activities in the 
     National Park System; and
       (2) properly manage competing recreational activities in 
     units of the National Park System.
       (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Study Completion.--No funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be expended to prohibit, ban 
     or reduce the number of snow machines from units of the 
     National Park System that allowed the use of snow machines 
     during any one of the last three winter seasons until the 
     study referred to in subsection (a) is completed and 
     submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an 
issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important 
to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a 
supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, 
the parks there are very much a part of our lives.
  Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very 
quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the 
concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for 
the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 
years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, 
and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that 
would allow us to continue to do that.
  Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about 
some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, 
or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply 
said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will 
eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States.
  What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; 
and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to 
determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, 
minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage 
competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is 
pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't 
they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage 
competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, 
that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great 
demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country 
skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so 
that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some 
management.
  So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated 
until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their 
study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the 
Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be 
done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, 
what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that 
back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I 
think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about.
  I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a 
considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a 
winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton 
Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with 
buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done 
there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them 
in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with 
an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with 
snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or 
looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the 
purpose of the park.
  The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to 
maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. 
Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent 
with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, 
more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are 
inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept.
  I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to 
defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress 
and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. 
That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here 
for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the 
legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, 
frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue 
but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, 
we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen.

[[Page 14658]]

  I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a 
public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that 
manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in 
Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the 
people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these 
areas.
  I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system 
of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the 
idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of 
evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone 
and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that 
stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do 
things based on real facts.
  The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban 
snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a 
matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some 
time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from 
Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky 
Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has 
interest from all over the whole country.
  The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on 
issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only 
alternative that is available.
  I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I 
defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they 
are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have 
had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very 
strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are 
involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land 
that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed.
  One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is 
there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, 
saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is 
the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine 
in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. 
There have been none.
  The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you 
are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that 
way.
  We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to 
do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes 
of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do 
that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they 
aren't going to do that.
  I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process 
that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is 
snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is 
food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. 
Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to 
make it better.
  Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should 
have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, 
if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer 
and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in 
them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is 
going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to 
be able to put out the machine that would comply.
  We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They 
testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will 
set the standard.
  It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as 
Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the 
summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the 
wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is 
what we are going to cut off.
  I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay 
attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to 
have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on 
findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives 
rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are 
going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that.
  We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this 
issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have 
them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better 
than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels 
of the Interior Department we are going to do something.
  I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the 
surrounding States which are very much impacted.
  This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader 
and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking 
for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to 
reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding 
for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the 
impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational 
activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas 
and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before 
the Senate for consideration.
  While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not 
immediately affect snowmobiling in Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park, 
it will impact snowmobiling in at least two units of the Park System in 
my home state--Grand Portage National Monument and the St. Croix 
National Scenic Riverway. In addition, this decision will greatly 
impact Minnesotans who enjoy snowmobiling, not only in Minnesota, but 
in many of our National Parks, particularly in the western part of our 
country.
  When I think of snowmobiling in Minnesota, I think of families and 
friends. I think of people who come together on their free time to 
enjoy the wonders of Minnesota in a way no other form of transportation 
allows them. I also think of the fact that in many instances 
snowmobiles in Minnesota are used for much more than just recreation. 
For some, they're a mode of transportation when snow blankets our 
state. For others, snowmobiles provide a mode of search and rescue 
activity. Whatever the reason, snowmobiles are an extremely important 
aspect of commerce, travel, recreation, and safety in my home state.
  Minnesota, right now, is home to over 280,000 registered snowmobiles 
and 20,000 miles of snowmobile trails. According to the Minnesota 
United Snowmobilers Association, an association with over 51,000 
individual members, Minnesota's 311 snowmobile riding clubs raised 
$264,000 for charity in 1998 alone. Snowmobiling creates over 6,600 
jobs and $645 million of economic activity in Minnesota. Minnesota is 
home to two major snowmobile manufacturers--Arctic Cat and Polaris. And 
yes, I enjoy my own snowmobiles.
  People who enjoy snowmobiling come from all walks of life. They're 
farmers, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, loggers, and miners. 
They're men, women, and young adults. They're people who enjoy the 
outdoors, time with their families, and the recreational opportunities 
our diverse climate offers. These are people who not only enjoy the 
natural resources through which they ride, but understand the important 
balance between enjoying and conserving our natural resources.
  Just three years ago, I took part in a snowmobile ride through a 
number of cities and trails in northern Minnesota. While our ride 
didn't take us through a unit of the National Park Service, it did take 
us through parks, forests, and trails that sustain a diverse amount of 
plant and animal species. I talked with my fellow riders and I learned 
a great deal about the work their snowmobile clubs undertake to 
conserve natural resources, respect the integrity of the

[[Page 14659]]

land upon which the ride, and educate their members about the need to 
ride responsibly.
  The time I spent with these individuals and the time I've spent on my 
own snowmobiles have given me a great respect for both the quality and 
enjoyment of the recreational experience and the need to ride 
responsibly and safely. It has also given me reason to strongly 
disagree with the approach the Park Service has chosen in banning 
snowmobiles from our National Parks.
  I was stunned to read of the severity of the Park Service's ban and 
the rhetoric used by Assistant Secretary Donald J. Barry in announcing 
the ban. In the announcement, Assistant Secretary Barry said, ``The 
time has come for the National Park Service to pull in its welcome mat 
for recreational snowmobiling.'' He went on to say that snowmobiles 
were, ``machines that are no longer welcome in our national parks.'' 
These are the words of a bureaucrat whose agenda has been handwritten 
for him by those opposed to snowmobiling.
  The last time I checked, Congress is supposed to be setting the 
agenda of the federal agencies. The last time I checked, Congress 
should be determining who is and is not welcome on our federal lands. 
And the last time I checked, the American people own our public-lands--
not the Clinton administration and certainly not Donald J. Barry.
  I can't begin to count the rules, regulations, and executive orders 
this Administration has undertaken without even the most minimal 
consideration for Congress or local officials. It has happened in state 
after state, to Democrats and Republicans, and with little or no regard 
for the rule or the intent of law. I want to quote Interior Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt from an article in the National Journal, dated May 22, 
1999. In the article, Secretary Babbitt was quoted as saying:

       When I got to town, what I didn't know was that we didn't 
     need more legislation. But we looked around and saw we had 
     authority to regulate grazing policies. It took 18 months to 
     draft new grazing regulations. On mining, we have also found 
     that we already had authority over, well, probably two-thirds 
     of the issues in contention. We've switched the rules of the 
     game. We're not trying to do anything legislative.

  As further evidence of this Administration's abuse of Congress--and 
therefore of the American people--Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator Carol Browner was quoted in the same article as saying:

       We completely understand all of the executive tools that 
     are available to us--And boy do we use them.

  While Ms. Browner's words strongly imply an intent to work around 
Congress, at least she did not join Secretary Babbitt in coming right 
out and admitting it.
  Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried of 
watching this Administration force park users out of their parks, steal 
land from our states and counties, impose costly new regulations on 
farmers and businesses without scientific justification, and force 
Congress to become a spectator on many of the most controversial and 
important issues before the American people. Quite frankly, I'm getting 
a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, 
zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands.
  When forging public policy, those of us in Congress often have to 
consider the opinions of the state and local officials who are most 
impacted. If I'm going to support an action on public land, I usually 
contact the state and local official who represent the area to see what 
they have to say. I know that if I don't get their perspective, I might 
miss a detail that could improve my efforts are necessary or if they're 
misplaced. They can alert me to areas where I need to forge a broader 
consensus and of ways in which my efforts might actually hurt the 
people I represent. I think that is a prudent way to forge public 
policy and a fair way to deal with state and local officials.
  I know, however, that no one from the Park Service ever contacted me 
to see how I felt about banning snowmobiling in Park Service units In 
Minnesota. I was never consulted on snowmobile usage in Minnesota or on 
any complaints that I might have received from my constituents. While 
I've not checked with every local official in Minnesota, not one local 
official has called me to say that the Park Service contacted them. In 
fact, while I knew the Park Service was considering taking action to 
curb snowmobile usage in some parks, I had no idea the Park Service was 
considering an action so broad, and so extreme, nor did I think they 
would issue it this quickly.
  This quick, overreaching action by the Park Service, I believe, was 
unwarranted. It did not allow time for federal, state, or local 
officials to work together on the issue. It didn't bring snowmobile 
users to the table to discuss the impact of the decision. It didn't 
allow time for Congress and the Administration to look at all of the 
available options or to differentiate between parks with heavy 
snowmobile usage and those with occasional usage. This decision stands 
as a dramatic example of how not to conduct policy formulation and is 
an affront to the consideration American citizens deserve from their 
elected officials.
  That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of 
night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this 
decision. We cannot simply stand by and watch as the administration 
continues its quest for even greater power at the expense of the 
deliberative legislative processes envisioned by the founders of our 
country. Secretary Babbitt, Administrator Browner, and Donald J. Barry 
may believe they're above working with Congress, but only we can make 
sure they're reminded, in the strongest possible terms, that when they 
neglect Congress they're neglecting the American people. This amendment 
does just that.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding 
a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks.
  The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks 
winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a 
landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local 
and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. 
While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has 
established that local and state governments possess the expertise and 
ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues 
critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document.
  In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of 
the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has 
chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually 
all national parks, including Yellowstone.
  I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this 
action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service 
would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would extend its ban on 
snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this 
action will spread to include other public land including the national 
forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors 
surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse 
opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles 
altogether.
  The United States Forest Service could claim that increased 
snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, 
or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or 
documentation to put such a ban in place.
  After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After 
snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? 
If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were 
assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, 
we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow 
and our public lands will no longer be available to the public.
  As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel 
it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this 
proposal by

[[Page 14660]]

the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and 
dearest of national parks.
  Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to 
experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come 
from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal 
features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk 
herds in the United States.
  In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the 
Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park 
beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, 
on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed 
ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal 
officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, 
a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered 
as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret.
  There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was 
made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park 
animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the 
main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service 
policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a 
reasonable compromise on national park winter use.
  As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced 
before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft 
environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states 
and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its 
neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before 
officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies 
that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental 
impact statement.
  The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed 
and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft 
study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts 
using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard 
emission amounts.
  So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone 
and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban 
snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of 
experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to 
stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the 
United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are.
  It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted 
for the American public to understand what is really being taken away 
from them.
  One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most 
Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of 
snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down 
poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the 
park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any 
given day.
  The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives 
to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile 
manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was 
also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could 
access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local 
leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid 
implementing a full fledged ban.
  In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several 
years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental 
Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter 
machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have 
clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet 
those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One 
company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to 
test.
  Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same 
roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand 
snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly 
enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is 
subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding.
  This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive 
order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our 
national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road 
vehicles in national parks.
  What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young 
riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or 
cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those 
visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to 
access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach.
  Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly 
impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or 
cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of 
approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to 
public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 
2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day.
  By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than 
Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive 
a car every day. Perspective is important.
  On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of 
riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of 
travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles 
that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It 
is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time.
  As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass 
transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually 
eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West 
Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate 
is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel 
in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 
feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on 
one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the 
other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach.
  Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to 
Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into 
Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a 
serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled 
up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these 
facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to 
make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and 
shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails.
  Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of 
snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park 
recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with 
the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and 
more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. After holding dozens 
of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to 
create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while 
at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment 
will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully 
incorporate a more positive approach to winter management.
  I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped 
inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, 
sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the 
years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts 
mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves 
Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough 
for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow 
coaches

[[Page 14661]]

in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include 
all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first 
and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the 
wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would 
accommodate both.
  The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary 
first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land 
planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park 
Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's 
decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local 
communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs 
the direction provided for in this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of my colleague from 
Wyoming on his amendment.
  I was quite surprised when Senator Reid of Nevada spoke on the floor 
about this issue because I heard what he was saying before. It was 
given in testimony before the Subcommittee on Parks, chaired by the 
Senator from Wyoming, by the national environmental groups. He was 
following their script. Their script says: Get all of the snowmobiles 
out of the park. For some reason that impacts the parks. I have ridden 
snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I am not sure the Senator from Nevada has. 
I am not sure many Senators have. I don't dispute the need to manage 
the number of snowmobiles and the entry of snowmobiles where they 
travel.
  But arbitrarily and without justification, Assistant Secretary 
Barry--who has now fled to the Wilderness Society once he tried to 
accomplish his damage here in this administration with the Park 
Service--came before the committee and emphatically said they had to 
go. In a press conference a few days prior to that hearing in almost a 
defiant, arrogant way, he said he was going to take all of them out of 
the parks, finish the rulemaking in Yellowstone, and so be it--failing 
to recognize the industries that have built up around snowmobiling at 
both entrances to Yellowstone Park; failing to deal with them in a 
responsible, cooperative way--so that he could ensure the mantra of the 
Clinton administration, and that public lands generate economies in 
recreation and tourism.
  Here quite the opposite was going on--no economy, everything for the 
environment, even though the facts bear out that you can still have an 
economy, meaning people on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the 
wintertime, and still protect the environment.
  How do you accomplish that? You work with the industry. What do you 
do with the industry? You ask them to redesign their sleds so they make 
little to no noise and very little pollution --if there is any of 
consequence that would damage the environment to begin with.
  What does the industry say? They can do it. In fact, last winter they 
were operating in Yellowstone with a prototype put out by one of the 
snowmobile manufacturers. It was a four-cycle instead of a two-cycle 
engine. The Senator from Nevada was bemoaning the pollution of the two-
cycle. We now know they can produce a four-cycle that will be certainly 
less environmentally damaging. They are willing to do that.
  The moment the industry said to the Park Service we can supply you 
with a new sled that meets these standards, the Park Service says: Oh, 
well, it wasn't air pollution, it wasn't noise pollution, it was 
wildlife harassment.
  Somehow the wildlife of Yellowstone is going through some emotional 
problem as a result of snowmobiles trafficking by recreationists on a 
daily basis. I am not quite sure they have had any examples of these 
wildlife species in therapy. But somehow they seem to know a great deal 
about it.
  The bottom line is simply this: The environmentalists have told this 
administration they want snowmobiles out of the parks.
  I suggest to the National Park Service that they have a real problem 
on their hands in management. In other words, they are denying public 
access to parks that were designed to protect the environment and also 
allow public access. They have a crisis in management.
  They don't have an environmental problem in Yellowstone, they have a 
management problem, a failure on the part of this administration, and 
certainly this President, to recognize the cooperative balance between 
the environment and the public and how one benefits from creating this 
kind of balance for all to benefit from.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the 
subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a 
minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will 
require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on 
this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go 
to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there 
will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for 
good, except for votes, at 6:15.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving an 
evaluation of the time remaining on the amendments that must be dealt 
with. I know the chairman has been struggling since around 3:15 to get 
Senators to debate the amendments, and now all of a sudden they appear 
on the floor in the last minutes.
  I conclude my debate. The Senator from Montana, I know, wants to 
speak to this issue. It impacts his State and the economy of his State. 
Once again I say to the administration, shame on you for taking people 
out of the environment, all in the name of the environment. It doesn't 
seem a very good solution to me, if you are going to tout tourism and 
recreation to us western States as an alternative to the elimination of 
the extractive resource industries that have provided economies to our 
States for the last 100-plus years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate 
everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants.
  If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see 
very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If 
you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is 
bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old 
snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they 
want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the 
bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in 
the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground.
  I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West 
Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make 
arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, 
quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the 
environment of Yellowstone Park.
  There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than 
all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic 
right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a 
number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The 
impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are 
riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make 
any difference. And are we concerned about that?
  Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is 
time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward 
with the recommendations that are made.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
issued proposed regulations governing the emissions of snowmobiles in 
our National Park System. It is very clear that these vehicles cause 
big problems. Why do I say that? A single snowmobile belches out the 
same pollution

[[Page 14662]]

that 20 automobiles do. One snowmobile equals the pollution of 20 
passenger cars.
  Also, my friend from Tennessee earlier talked about the air pollution 
in the Great Smoky Mountains because of coal-fired generating plants in 
that area. There isn't much that can be done, at this stage at least, 
to stop those longstanding power producers from generating the 
emissions they do. But there is something we can do to stop air 
pollution from developing as it has in our National Park System.
  It is a national disgrace that the levels of toxic pollution, such as 
carbon monoxide--in Yellowstone National Park, to pick just one--rival 
major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. I repeat, it is a 
national disgrace that levels of toxic pollutants such as carbon 
monoxide, in our national parks--especially Yellowstone--at times, 
rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. That is 
significant.
  But what is being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is 
nothing that is going to eliminate snowmobiling in our country.
  For example, of the more than 130,000 miles of designated snowmobile 
trails in the United States, less than 1,000 of those miles are in 
national parks--to be exact, there are 600 miles. So this furor, and 
the offering of this amendment, to eliminate this proposal to stop the 
air pollution of snowmobiles in national parks is really a red herring. 
There are other places you can ride snowmobiles. In fact, you can ride 
them over 129,000 miles in the United States alone. We need not ride 
them this 600 miles in national parks.
  Appropriate access to national parks is important, but such access 
does not include all forms of transportation at all times. Protecting 
parks from air, water, and noise pollution, for the enjoyment of all 
Americans, should be our No. 1 goal.
  I am very happy that the Senator from Tennessee spoke earlier about 
how important national parks are. I agree with him. We are the envy of 
the rest of the world with our national parks.
  Yosemite, Great Basin National Park, Yellowstone National Park--these 
wonderful gems of nature, that we are attempting to preserve, need to 
be preserved.
  The amendment would prohibit the Park Service from doing its job to 
protect some of America's most awe-inspiring national treasures. The 
landscape of our national parks should reflect the wonders of our 
Creator, which I think we have an obligation to protect. National parks 
do not need to serve as racetracks for noisy, high-polluting snow 
machines.
  The State of Nevada shares Lake Tahoe with California. We wish we had 
all of Lake Tahoe, but we do not mind sharing it with California. It is 
a wonderful, beautiful lake. There is only one other lake like it in 
the world, and that is Lake Bakal in the former Soviet Union, now 
Russia, an alpine glacial lake. Lake Tahoe it is very deep--not as deep 
as Lake Bakal, which is over 5,000 feet deep, but very deep. It was 
only 35 years ago they found the bottom of Lake Tahoe. It is extremely 
cold. It is beautiful. It is emerald colored.
  But one of the things contributing to the ruination of Lake Tahoe is 
two-stroke engines. They were outlawed last year. I am glad they were 
outlawed. People may complain: What are we going to do for recreation?
  There are plenty of things to do for recreation without these two-
stroke engines. They are gone now. The lake is less polluted. It sounds 
better. Two-stroke engines are also the engines that snowmobiles use. 
They have been outlawed at Lake Tahoe. Why? Because they are 
inefficient, highly polluting, and contribute disproportionately to the 
decline of the lake's legendary clarity and degradation of its water 
quality.
  Our national parks deserve similar protection from the pollution 
produced by these snow machines.
  In sum, the use of snowmobiles currently prevents adequate protection 
of air and water quality for wildlife. Damage is being done to national 
parks not some time in the future but right now. The unnecessary delay 
caused by this amendment would allow further damage to our parks.
  Congress should allow individual parks that currently allow 
snowmobiling to go through a public comment process to determine what 
course of action is appropriate. This amendment would eliminate that.
  EPA agrees that the Park Service has the primary and immediate duty 
to take action to protect parks from snowmobile impacts. In comments on 
the draft EIS for winter use at Yellowstone, EPA said:

       We encourage the National Park Service to take the steps 
     necessary to protect human health and the environment 
     immediately rather than to depend on future regulations of 
     off-highway vehicle engines from EPA.

  They are saying let's not wait for us to do it. The Park Service has 
an obligation to do it right now. Postponing Park Service action on the 
snowmobile issue is a delay tactic, pure and simple.
  The amendment we are debating assumes there is an inherent right of 
snowmobiles to run wild in the national parks, irrespective of their 
impact on other users and the environment. This is a very flawed 
assumption. They have no inherent right to run wild in national parks.
  All Americans have the right to enjoy our national parks but only in 
ways that do not damage the parks. Prohibiting snowmobiles in national 
parks will have an insignificant impact on recreational opportunities 
available to snowmobilers. Again, there are more than 130,000 miles of 
designated trails in the United States, and less than 1,000 of those 
miles are in national parks. That is less than 1 percent.
  Because millions of acres of public lands are already open to public 
snowmobiling, banning snow machines in national parks does not prevent 
recreationists from using their vehicles. It just prevents them from 
using the most sensitive and heavily visited public lands.
  Arguing that every form of recreational access should be allowed in 
national parks is silly. Visitors do not need to jet boat in Crater 
Lake National Park. Visitors do not need to ride dirt bikes in the 
Grand Canyon. Visitors do not need to bungee jump from the Washington 
Monument.
  Prohibitions against such activities do not restrict Americans' 
access to our parks; rather, they indicate a willingness to protect 
parks for the enjoyment of all visitors.
  Great Basin National Park in Nevada already prohibits snowmobile use. 
Glacier and Yosemite Parks do not allow snowmobile use.
  What are some of the environmental problems caused by snowmobiles in 
national parks?
  Environmental analyses done at Yellowstone and elsewhere have shown 
that snowmobiles can seriously damage park resources. According to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, existing scientific evidence ``clearly 
and convincingly demonstrates [that] current snowmobile use is 
adversely affecting the natural . . . aesthetic . . . and scenic 
values'' in Yellowstone.
  Air pollution: Yellowstone and several other national parks are 
recognized as Class I airsheds under the Clean Air Act. The Park 
Service is required by law to protect these areas from any degradation. 
The presence of snowmobiles in the park makes that task virtually 
impossible.
  Air quality monitors at Yellowstone's west entrance have found carbon 
monoxide levels that rival or exceed those found in major urban areas 
such as Denver and Los Angeles.
  Snowmobiles account for up to 68 percent of Yellowstone's annual 
carbon monoxide emissions and up to 90 percent of hydrocarbon 
emissions, even through automobiles out number them 16 to 1.
  Water pollution: Every winter, snowmobiles spew unburned fuel into 
the snow in national parks and ultimately into their rivers and lakes.
  Contaminants released by snowmobiles two-stroke engines include 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and methyl tertiary butyl ether.
  PAHs in water are toxic to aquatic life, and MTBE is an identified 
human health hazard

[[Page 14663]]

  Noise pollution: The preservation of natural sounds is a major 
national park management objective,
  A study of snowmobile noise interfered with visitors' ability to hear 
natural sounds at 12 out of 13 popular locations, including Morning 
Glory Pool, Grand Prismatic Spring, and other destinations. At Old 
Faithful, the world's most famous geyser, snowmobile engines were the 
dominant sound 100 percent of the time.
  Wildlife impacts: The NPS Biological Resources Division found that 
``snowmobile usage adversely affects wildlife.''
  Noise and the physical presence of snowmobiles cause animals to alter 
their activity patterns, This behavioral response is of concern because 
snowmobile use occurs when food supplies are low and an animal's 
ability to conserve energy may be critical to its survival.
  Heavily used snowmobile routes can cut off winter migration paths 
used by park wildlife.
  Conflicts with other park visitors: Snowmobiles detract from other 
people's experience in the national parks. A 1996 visitor use study 
conducted in Yellowstone found many people who reported that encounters 
with snowmobiles were the least enjoyable part of their park visit 
because of the noise, pollution, and impact on wildlife viewing.
  How will restrictions on national parks affect other recreational 
snowmobiling opportunities?
  According to the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association 
there are approximately 230,000 miles of groomed and marked snowmobile 
trails in North America, and about 130,000 miles in the United States. 
This does not include areas such as national forest roads that are open 
to snowmobiles but not explicitly designated for snowmobiles. In 
contrast, there are only about 600 miles of roads and waterways open to 
snowmobile in national parks in the continental United States, and 300 
of those miles are excluded from the NPS April 26 announcement. Closing 
national parks will not diminish recreation opportunities for 
snowmobiles, but it will help reduce noise, pollution, and congestion 
in Yellowstone and other parks.
  Many states have thousands of miles of designated trails for 
snowmobilers to enjoy. Promotional material from the state of Wyoming 
does not even mention Yellowstone National Park, but does promise that 
``with over 2,200 miles of snowmobile trails, you can access some of 
the most scenic back-country in the world.''
  Snowmobile opportunities in other States include: Colorado, over 
3,000 miles of trails; Idaho, over 7,200 miles of trails; Maine, over 
12,000 miles of trails; Michigan, 5,800 miles of trails; Minnesota, 
14,000 miles of trails; and Montana, over 2,500 miles of trails.
  How much snowmobile use is there in the national parks?
  There are 42 units of the National Park System that allow 
snowmobiles, 28 of these parks are in the continental U.S. Over 175,000 
snowmobiles use these 28 parks annually. The five parks with the most 
annual use are: Yellowstone, 65,000 are 1.5 million registered 
snowmobiles in the United States.
  How will this affect individual national parks?
  The National Park Service action DOES NOT immediately ban snowmobile 
use in all national parks. Late this summer, the Park Service plans to 
release a proposed rule that will amend its overall snowmobile 
regulation, 36 CFR 2.18 and address each of the parks that currently 
allow snowmobiles. This proposed rule would modify or amend those 
special regulations to bring parks into compliance with the Executive 
Orders, statutes, and regulations. Public comments will be incorporated 
before the rule is made final.
  For example, approximately 80 percent of existing snowmobile use at 
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is expected to continue. and at St. 
Croix National Scenic Riverway, an annual ``Winterfest'' celebration 
that includes snowmobiles is expected to continue under a special use 
permit.
  There are arguments by opponents of Park Service regulations.
  Argument: A snowcoach system in Yellowstone would deny visitors 
access to the park.
  Response: The snowcoach system proposed by the Park Service for 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks will provide park visitors 
access to all of the areas currently open to snowmobile visitors.
  The only access proposed to be limited is that of backcountry ski and 
snowshoe visitors in off-trail areas of critical winter wildlife 
habitat.
  The snowcoach system will allow the same number, if not more, of 
visitors to enter the park each winter, while reducing the number of 
vehicles by 90 percent, assuming average capacities of one person per 
snowmobile and the ten per snowcoach.
  There is a tendency to confuse access with recreational use. 
Snowmobiles as currently used are a form of recreation. The parks have 
a duty to determine the means of access to park attractions that cause 
the least damage to resources. In no way is public access being eroded, 
rather a recreational pursuit is being eliminated due to its negative 
impacts on park resources. A less damaging mode of transportation will 
be substituted to allow visitor access to the parks.
  Proposals to allow snowmobiles but to cap their numbers would 
essentially limit the numbers of winter visitors to the park. People 
are not the problem in the parks. Noisy, polluting machines are what's 
needed to be limited.
  In relation to economic impacts--argument: The Yellowstone gateway 
communities are uniformly opposed to the removal of snowmobiles because 
it will destroy their winter economies.
  Response: Scores of businesspeople in West Yellowstone, MT, the main 
winter gateway to Yellowstone, have raised their voices in support of 
removal of snowmobiles from the park. Several representatives of the 
community/business owner organization West Yellowstone Citizens for a 
Healthy Park traveled to Washington, D.C. this spring to tell Congress 
that the health of their local economy depends on the health of 
Yellowstone National Park.
  Current snowmobile use in Yellowstone creates numerous problems of 
safety, noise and air pollution in gateway communities. A change in 
winter park transportation will allow for much-desired diversification 
of gateway economies.
  In relation to improved technology--Argument: The regulation of 
snowmobiles in national parks should be delayed until new snowmobile 
technologies are available.
  Response: The EPA has explicitly told the Park Service not to wait 
for upcoming EPA regulations: ``This DEIS includes extensive analysis 
of the effects from current winter use and that analysis demonstrates 
significant environmental and human health impacts. We encourage NPS to 
take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment 
immediately rather than to depend on future regulation of OHV engines 
from EPA.'' EPA comments on Draft EIS for Winter Use Plans, Yellowstone 
and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial 
Parkway, Region 8 EPA, Denver, CO.
  EPA regulations will not address noise emissions from snowmobiles and 
may not require air emissions stringent enough to protect park air 
quality.
  Compliance with park regulations and laws regarding wildlife, noise 
and visitor conflict will not be addressed by the development of 
snowmobiles with less air pollution.
  Less polluting snowmobiles would not address the mass transit needs 
of the parks. Many parks are adopting mass transit using the cleanest, 
quietest technologies available; this is also the case in Yellowstone. 
Transportation alternatives to the one-person, one vehicle model have 
been implemented in Acadia and Denali, and will soon be in place in 
Grand Canyon, Zion and Yosemite National Parks. The NPS should be a 
leader in promoting clean, quiet and affordable modes of group 
transportation that are protective of the natural qualities of the 
parks.
  Recognizing that it is the vehicles, not the people at the root of 
the problem, Yellowstone in winter is a natural place to look next for 
expansion of the

[[Page 14664]]

alternative transportation program already taking place in the Park 
System.
  In relation to the history of Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National 
Park, in 1963, the first snowmobile enters Yellowstone. In 1973-1974, 
30,000 snowmobiles enter Yellowstone. In 1972 the National Park Service 
Regional Director asked all parks to devise winter use plans. Glacier 
National Park undertook such a review and noted the variety of problems 
caused by snowmobiling in the park including air and noise pollution, 
wildlife disturbance and conflicts with other park users. For these 
reasons and because of strong public sentiment against disrupting the 
quiet and beauty of Glacier National Park with snowmobiles, the park 
decided to ban them. Yosemite, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Lassen and others 
followed suit.
  Yellowstone, however, did not follow the directive to assess the 
impact of snowmobiles on park resources. Complaints from visitors and 
park rangers concerning air and noise pollution grew commonplace and 
the first studies documenting adverse impacts to wildlife from 
snowmobile use were completed. Future superintendents of Yellowstone 
allowed further expansion of snowmobiling in the park despite ongoing 
concerns about air and noise pollution and wildlife impacts. Finally, 
in the 1990s conditions in Yellowstone and Grand Teton grew so bad that 
the parks were forced to take action.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss 
the rulemaking that has been proposed by the National Park Service to 
limit the use of snowmobiles in national parks.
  National parks are the crown jewels of our nation's system of public 
lands. They harbor diverse wildlife, rare and beautiful species of 
plants and spectacular geological formations. In my home state of South 
Dakota, the Badlands National Park is home to a rich trove of ancient 
fossils and it provides important habitat for the black-tailed prairie 
dog and black-footed ferret.
  I support the efforts of the National Park Service to ensure that 
these lands remain pristine so that future generations of Americans can 
enjoy them. I also understand the strong desire of many snowmobilers to 
continue to have wintertime access to these lands, where the activity 
has been enjoyed for many years.
  While snowmobiling does not currently take place in national parks in 
South Dakota, there is a great deal of interest in this issue in the 
state and support for appropriately managed access to national parks. 
By carefully managing the parks, I believe that we can provide this 
access in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the environment 
and to those who go to public lands in search of solitude and quiet.
  Today, Secretary Bruce Babbitt wrote me to describe in greater detail 
how the National Park Service intends to proceed in coming months. I 
believe that it is critical for the agency to review a variety of 
options for managing snowmobiles and to ensure a full opportunity for 
public comment. According to the Secretary's letter, the agency does 
not intend to ban snowmobiles, but will proceed with a rulemaking and 
public comment period that will allow a full analysis of this issue and 
provide options for the controlled use of snowmobiles in national 
parks. I look forward to continuing to discuss this issue with my 
colleagues, the administration, representatives of environmental groups 
and snowmobiling enthusiasts.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Babbitt be 
included in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                        Washington, July 17, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am responding to your recent 
     request for clarification of the status of National Park 
     Service actions on the use of snowmobiles in national parks. 
     Since there have been some misperceptions about what the 
     Service has done, I appreciate the opportunity to provide 
     this clarification.
       In response to a petition for a rulemaking, the National 
     Park Service has reviewed the snowmobile use that is now 
     allowed in 42 of the 379 units of the national park system. 
     That review, including a review by the Office of the 
     Solicitor of the Department, had led us to conclude that much 
     of the snowmobile use that is now occurring is not consistent 
     with the requirements of Executive Orders 11644 and 11898, 
     issued by Presidents Nixon and Carter, and other legal 
     requirements. Accordingly, in April the Department and the 
     Service announced that we would undertake a new rulemaking to 
     modify the existing system-wide general rule (36 CFR 2.18), 
     and additional park-specific special rules, to bring them 
     into compliance with the applicable legal requirements. We 
     did not announce that any decision had been made, but instead 
     that we intend to initiate a rulemaking process. In that 
     process, we will comply with all established requirements for 
     rulemaking, including the requirements for seeking and 
     considering public comments. It is our current intent to 
     publish by mid-September a proposed rule, for public comment, 
     to begin the formal process of making these changes.
       Until a new rulemaking is completed, the existing rules on 
     snowmobile use in the national parks remain in effect.
       We will seek public comment on a proposed rule generally 
     following the format of the existing rule, which prohibits 
     snowmobile use in national parks except in certain instances. 
     The draft rule has not yet been completed, but, when 
     finalized, it would not affect snowmobile use opportunities 
     in national park system areas for the following purposes: For 
     access to private, or other non-federal property; for access 
     across national parks to reach private or other public lands 
     that are open to snowmobiles use; where the roads through 
     national parks are not under federal jurisdiction; and as 
     authorized in specific national park enabling statutes (i.e., 
     with respect to national parks in Alaska and Voyaguers 
     National Park).
       In addition, as a result of settlement of litigation, the 
     National Park Service is in the final stages of preparing a 
     Winter Use Management Plan and EIS for Yellowstone and Grand 
     Teton National Parks. The final decisions on winter use have 
     not been made there, but those decisions will determine 
     future winter use management in these two parks, including 
     the use of snowmobiles.
       If we do propose a rule containing these elements, and if, 
     following public comment, we finalize a rule along these 
     lines, the net effect would be that some level of snowmobile 
     use would continue in about 30 of the 42 national parks where 
     it is now allowed. Of course, since the proposed rule will be 
     subject to public review and comment, we are likely to 
     consider additional alternatives during this process and a 
     different outcome could result.
       To summarize, the National Park Service has not made any 
     final decisions on what changes to make in the snowmobile use 
     that is allowed in national parks, and any decisions we make 
     will be made following public comment and in compliance with 
     other requirements for agency rulemaking. I appreciate the 
     opportunity to clarify this.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment 
on the issue of snowmobiling in Yellowstone.
  It is pretty clear to anyone who has visited Yellowstone during the 
winter that changes need to be made to protect the park. I have met 
with folks on all sides of this issue, and I think that most people 
agree that the noise, air pollution and wildlife impacts are 
unacceptable and have to be addressed.
  Yellowstone is the engine for local economies and is part of our 
national heritage. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make 
sure that we don't harm the park and its wildlife.
  That having been said, I don't think we need an outright ban. I 
believe that we can protect the park and its wildlife in other ways. 
Already, people have put forth a number of creative alternatives to 
meet these goals, including limiting the number of snowmobiles allowed 
in the park, requiring clean and quiet machines, and using guided 
tours.
  I think we need to explore all these alternatives and work together 
to strike a common-sense balance that best serves Yellowstone and 
Montana. A balance that protects the Park, the local economies and 
involves people on all sides of this issue.
  As my colleagues in this body know, I am not in favor of legislating 
on appropriations bills. I am pleased that the Senate has decided to 
not pursue that route for the time being. It is my hope that the 
current administrative process that is underway for Yellowstone will 
produce an administrative compromise that protects Yellowstone National 
Park and provides for a broad range of visitor uses of the Park.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

[[Page 14665]]




                     Amendment No. 3800, Withdrawn

  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Montana and the other Members 
who have joined.
  There is no one in this place who is a stronger supporter of national 
parks than I. I continue to support the national parks. Here is a 
chance to find some alternative ways to do that.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving time.
  I do not intend to ask for a vote.
  Mr. GORTON. Is the Senator withdrawing the amendment?
  Mr. THOMAS. I will withdraw the amendment. I intend to withdraw the 
amendment to try to find a mutual resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for that gesture. I 
support the cause to which he has spoken. If there is a way to get at 
least part of that adopted, I will try to find it.
  I express my appreciation to my friend from Nevada to whom I made a 
promise about debating this amendment earlier that I could not keep. He 
has been most understanding.
  Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the distinguished leader's comments. The 
Senator from Washington has honored his commitment because, as the 
Senator knows, I had a previous commitment earlier in the day. I thank 
the Senator for his accommodation.
  As I understand the parliamentary status, I will need to seek 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of 
offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3883

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, and Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered 3883.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To reduce the Forest Service timber sale budget by 
    $30,000,000 and increase the wildland fire management budget by 
                              $15,000,000)

       On page 164, line 19, strike ``$1,233,824,000,'' and insert 
     ``$1,203,824,000,''.
       On page 164, line 23, strike ``(16 U.S.C. 460l6a(i)):'' and 
     insert ``(16 U.S.C. 460l6a(i)), of which $220,844,000 shall 
     be available for forest products:''.
       On page 165, beginning on line 6, strike ``Provided'' and 
     all that follows through ``accomplishment:'' on lines 11 and 
     12.
       On page 165, line 25, strike ``$618,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended:'' and insert ``$633,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $419,593,000 shall 
     be available for preparedness and fire use functions:''.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment with my 
colleague from Illinois that is a win-win for the American taxpayer and 
for those communities that reside near our National Forests.
  The Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment will cut $30 million from the Forest 
Service's money losing timber program and shift $15 million to needed 
fire planning and preparedness activities.
  Thee is a crucial need for increased fire planning on our National 
Forests.
  Our amendment responds to the findings of a recent internal Forest 
Service report that found that the agency was violating its own 
National Fire Management Policy due to the lack of ``Fire Management 
Plans'' for each national forest.
  The report indicated that fire management planning has not been a 
priority within the Forest Service, with less than 5 percent of the 
National Forests having current, approved fire plans.
  The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy calls for ``every area 
with burnable vegetation [to] have an approved Fire Management Plan.''
  The Wildland Fire program protects life, property, and natural 
resources on the 192 million acres of National Forest System lands as 
well as an additional 20 million acres of adjacent State and private 
lands that are protected through fee or reciprocal protection 
agreements.
  In my home state of Nevada, we have a multi-jurisdictional 
firefighting organization known as the Sierra Front, which is comprised 
of federal, state, and local fire management agencies. I might say, 
parenthetically, in my experience both as a former Governor and as a 
member of this body, the Sierra Front has done an extraordinary job in 
terms of coordinating and preparing its own activities and is relied 
upon by local, State, as well as national forest administrators for a 
coordinated effort.
  There are similar organizations in other States, and all of these 
organizations depend heavily on Federal fire preparedness funds for 
necessary training and organizational planning activities.
  The amendment we offer will provide an additional $15 million for the 
Forest Service to enhance its capability to prevent, detect, or take 
prompt, effective, official suppression action on wildlife fires.
  There is a financial benefit, a cost-benefit analysis that needs to 
be considered. I bring my colleagues' attention to an internal Forest 
Service report issued earlier this year entitled ``Policy implications 
of large fire management, the strategic assessment of factors 
influencing the cost.'' I think our colleagues will be interested to 
know that this report concludes that estimates have shown that for 
every dollar of appropriated preparedness dollars received, there is a 
savings of $5 to $7 in fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation 
funds spent.
  The point that needs to be made is, a little fire management planning 
goes a long way to reduce and to minimize the overall impact when fire 
comes because of the training, the planning, and the preparedness 
activities that go on as a result of that. That is a dollar savings to 
the American taxpayer and, in my judgment, is a very prudent 
expenditure of Federal dollars.
  Unfortunately, notwithstanding this assessment, the myth that 
commercial logging is the best method of fuels reduction is driving 
some of my colleagues to appropriate more funds for the timber program 
at the expense of needed fire plans for national forests, increased 
education for residents on wildland boundaries, and on fire 
preparedness activities. In fact, to the contrary, it is widely 
recognized in the scientific community that past commercial logging and 
associated roadbuilding activities are the prime culprits for the 
severity of many of our wildfires.
  Commercial logging removes the least flammable portion of trees--
their main stems or trunks, while leaving behind their most flammable 
portions--their needles and limbs, directly on the ground. Untreated 
logging slash can adversely affect fire behavior for up to 30 years 
following the logging operations.
  According to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report, issued in 
1996 by the Federal Government,

     timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, 
     local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire 
     severity more than any other recent human activity.

  In addition, a recent GAO report stated that:

       Mechanically removing fuels through commercial timber 
     harvesting and other means can also have adverse effects on 
     wildlife habitat and water quality in many areas. Officials 
     told GAO that, because of these effects, a large-scale 
     expansion of commercial timber harvesting alone for removing 
     materials would not be feasible. However, because the Forest 
     Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its 
     other activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used 
     this program to address the wildfire problem. The difficulty 
     with such an approach, however, is that the lands with 
     commercially valuable timber are often not those with the 
     greatest wildfire hazards.

  Logging causes adverse changes in forest composition--intensive 
thinning and clearcutting dry out soils and leave behind debris that 
becomes tinder dry in open clearcuts.

[[Page 14666]]

  Congress should invest in proactive fire planning and non-commercial 
hazardous fuels reduction projects as the best means of avoiding the 
high costs to taxpayers, damage to ecosystems, and risk to firefighters 
from reactive, unplanned, emergency fire suppression actions.
  This bill contains $250 million for the administration of the timber 
sale program, which is more than $30 million above the Administration's 
budget request.
  These expenditures for a money losing timber program are an enormous 
drain on the Treasury.
  In their most recent Forest Management Program Annual Report, July, 
1998, the Forest Service admits to losing $88.6 million from their 
timber program in FY97.
  This was the second consecutive year that the Forest Service reported 
a loss.
  In addition to the reported loss, the $88.6 million figure excludes a 
full accounting of all costs associated with logging.
  In past fiscal years, independent analyses estimate the loss from 
below-cost timber sales are far greater than those reported by the 
Forest Service.
  The General Accounting Office estimated that the timber program cost 
taxpayers at least $2 billion from 1922 to 1997, and in recent 
testimony they indicated that ``[t]he Forest Service is still years 
away from providing the Congress and the public with a clear 
understanding of what is being accomplished with taxpayer dollars.''
  Our amendment would reduce funding for the Forest Service's timber 
program by $30 million to the level requested by the Administration.
  In spite of the fact that our National Forest supply a mere 4% of our 
nation's annual timber harvest, this bill continues to reflect the 
dominance of the timber program at the expense of other programs 
designed to improve forest health and enhance the public's enjoyment of 
our national forest.
  Over 380,000 miles of roads criss-cross the national forests--that is 
over eight times the distance of the Federal Interstate Highway 
System--and, in addition, there are an additional 40,000 miles of 
univentoried roads.
  The Forest Service estimates that over 80% of these roads are not 
maintained to public safety and environmental standards.
  As a matter of public policy, I would argue that it makes more sense 
to maintain the roads we already have than to spend money building new 
roads we don't need for a logging program that costs taxpayers millions 
of dollars each year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment to cut 
wasteful subsidies for the commercial timber industry and to enhance 
the Forest Service's ability to combat the devastating wildfires 
confronting many of our communities in the West.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been listening with great interest 
for the last several minutes as the Senator from Nevada made his 
presentation in relation to an amendment to take $30 million out of the 
timber program. He has given the reason that we have a catastrophic 
situation in the West today--some 39 million acres of our public 
timbered lands are in a critical situation as it relates to stand-
altering fires, and we ought to do better planning. Therefore, we ought 
to take the money out to do better planning so we could circumvent this 
situation. And, oh, by the way, logging exacerbates that problem by 
leaving some slash on the ground.
  The argument of the Senator might have some modicum of validity if we 
had not done what we did last week. Last week, we passed Senator Pete 
Domenici's bill for which the Senator from Nevada voted. We put $240 
million, not $30 million--$240 million in a fuel reduction program. In 
fact, the Forest Service says it funds entirely, Senator Bryan, all 
that they can do. It even provides additional money for planning. So, 
really, the fire issue should be set aside in your debate, based on the 
actions of the Senate last week. I think what the Senate did last week 
is responsible, to put that kind of money into fuel reduction, 
especially in the urban interface and in those areas of the kind we saw 
at Los Alamos, in New Mexico, where we saw hundreds of homes go up in 
smoke as a result of bad policy and bad management on the part of this 
administration coming together.
  What are we talking about, then, if the fire issue has been dealt 
with appropriately by this Senate? If what we are talking about is the 
existing timber program that obviously the Senator from Nevada opposes, 
as do many environmental groups that he finds himself here on the floor 
today representing, then the fire issue I think is relatively moot. So 
let's talk about the timber sale program.
  What the Senator from Nevada is doing when he talks about it being a 
money loser is he is taking money out of a program from a portion of 
the program that really is the money maker. So he is fulfilling a 
prophesy of argument that somehow this will continue to be a money 
loser, and most assuredly it will be if you take money from that kind 
of program.
  Let me talk about the program for a few moments, where it is as a 
part of an overall forest policy in our Nation, and why it is important 
we keep some approach to a timber program, whether it is for green 
sales to supply dimensional timber to the housing industry of our 
Nation, or whether it is for the purpose of thinning and reducing the 
overall burden of the number of trees within a stand of timber, 
therefore increasing the viability of forest health in our Nation's 
forests.
  Those 39 million acres of timberland that are in critical condition 
today across our Nation are, in fact, a result of the overstocking of 
these acreages. Some 400-plus trees per acre now exist on land that 100 
years ago, long before man was out there logging them, had only 60 
trees per acre.
  As a result, we need a concentrated program of management for fuels 
reduction for fire, but I also think we can reasonably argue that we 
can take some of those trees out for timber, logging, home building, 
purposes for the Nation's economy.
  Let me give an example of where we are with the industry at this 
moment and why I think it is important we discuss it.
  On this first chart, it shows in 1989 there were about 150,000 jobs 
in the timber industry nationwide. In 1997, that had been reduced to 
about 55,000 timber jobs, almost a two-thirds reduction in overall 
employment that is in direct correspondence, in part, to the amount of 
logging that goes on.
  Since the Clinton administration has come to Washington, its timber 
policies have reduced logging on our national forests by over 80 
percent nationwide--an 80-percent reduction nationwide in overall 
logging.
  What does that mean on a State-by-State basis? Let me give an example 
of what it means in at least three States. It does not mean much in the 
State of Nevada. They do not have trees to log, except in very limited 
ways. This is what it means in the State of Washington from 1989 to 
present: It means 55 mills closed and 3,285 primary mill jobs. That is 
what that kind of policy means. In my State of Idaho, 13 mills closed, 
1,083 people. In the State of Oregon, 111 mills closed and 11,600 
people. That is even after the President's new plan.
  Remember, when he came to office, he held a big timber summit in 
Oregon: Save the trees and save the jobs. They have not been able to 
produce the jobs. In fact, they had to backtrack and even back away 
from their own policy because of the pressure from environmental 
groups. They were unwilling to support their own policy. The Senator 
from Nevada is now on the floor trying to argue for a major reduction 
in that policy.
  In the State of California, 46 mills and 4,427 jobs. It will not 
affect Nevada. They do not cut trees there, or cut very few.
  I have worked with the Senator from Nevada on an area that I think is 
tremendously important. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
just reported out S. 1925, the Lake Tahoe

[[Page 14667]]

Restoration Act. The Senator from Nevada and his colleague have been 
extremely concerned about the health of the forest in the Greater Tahoe 
Basin, and he should be. That forest is an overmature, climax forest. 
In other words, it is beyond the point of healthy adulthood. Trees are 
dying; trees are too thick. There is an urban interface with beautiful 
big recreational homes built amongst the stands of timber. They have a 
silviculture problem with the potential of massive wildfires in the 
Tahoe Basin, losing those beautiful homes, and creating a catastrophic 
environmental situation that could badly damage the beautiful Lake 
Tahoe itself.
  The Senator from Nevada has a problem. He has a bill that authorizes 
work to be done in the basin, but he has no money. What he is doing 
tonight is cutting out of one of the budgets of the Forest Service, 
some of the very money that will go to restore Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe 
Basin. I am not quite sure he can get it both ways.
  I have worked with the Senator from Nevada to try to assure the Tahoe 
Basin restoration program will go forward and that we will have 
adequate moneys to begin to do the kinds of silviculture programs, the 
thinnings and the necessary efforts, that will create a higher level of 
forest health in the Tahoe Basin. We cannot do it tonight because the 
Senator from Nevada is cutting $30 million to the detriment of his own 
program.
  I suggest when he was approached by the environmental groups to do 
this amendment that was not a factor, but what is a factor is that the 
Senator from Nevada has not had money appropriated for his project. He 
will hand it over to the Forest Service at large. It is a bill that 
will authorize the Forest Service to move in that area, and he is even 
cutting the budgets of the Forest Service, or attempting to as we 
speak.
  That is frustrating. It is extremely frustrating to this Senator who 
has worked very closely with the Senator from Nevada to assure that his 
Tahoe Basin project is authorized because it is necessary and it is 
appropriate.
  Last week, the Senator from Nevada joined with us to put over $240 
million into a fire reduction program and a program to allow the Forest 
Service to study even greater amounts of fire suppression by reduction 
of the fuel loading on our national forest floors.
  Yet today he comes back with that argument. Let me suggest this 
argument is for one purpose and one purpose only, and his amendment 
will serve for one purpose and one purpose only. We find it right here 
in a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
America. This labor union--men and women who work for the forest 
products industries--says:

       The Bryan amendment places thousands of forest product jobs 
     at risk and jeopardizes the social and economic stability of 
     rural communities.

  You are darned right it does. In the rural communities of Idaho, 
Oregon, and Washington that still have mill jobs, that still ought to 
be cutting trees. We have 13 and 14 percent unemployment, and this will 
drive the unemployment up even further.
  No, those communities are not reaping the benefit of the current full 
employment economy. The mills on the eastern side of Washington are not 
reaping the benefit of the high-tech jobs of western Washington. The 
mills in north Idaho are not reaping the benefits of the high-tech jobs 
of south Idaho, and so on.
  What we have attempted to do with reasonably consistent and 
environmentally sound policy is to ensure a balance. The Senator from 
Nevada denies us that balance by refusing to allow the Forest Service 
to have the very tools necessary to properly manage the current timber 
program.
  This is not about new roads. There is a road moratorium. The Senator 
from Nevada knows that. The environmental community last week claimed a 
major victory with the President's new roadless area initiative. The 
Senator knows there is not going to be any new roads built. So roads 
are not the argument, not now and not for the near future.
  What is at stake is the very jobs that produce the dimensional lumber 
that comes to the markets that builds the homes of America. It is right 
and reasonable to assume that some of it ought to come from the forests 
of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and California.
  I hope the Senator, recognizing that this whole issue has shifted 
pretty dramatically in the last 72 hours, will recognize that his 
amendment no longer has carrying with it the validity that his argument 
might have had just last week.
  Mr. President, $240 million later, this Congress, in a responsible 
fashion, has addressed the catastrophic fire situation that might now 
exist in our public lands and are willing to deal with it. Those are 
the issues at hand that are so very important to all of us.
  Lastly, the very money the Senator will eliminate from the projects 
and from the programs--here is a letter from the Society of American 
Foresters saying that the fire in Los Alamos that cost us 235 homes 
clearly demonstrates that if we had been allowed to have used the 
stewardship timber sales programs that, in part, the Senator's 
amendment will now deny us, we could have reduced the fuel loading and, 
in many instances, we might have saved those homes. That is exactly 
what we are trying to deal with here.
  I hope my colleagues will vote with me in voting down the Bryan 
amendment. There is no basis for the arguments that are placed today 
that relate to the amendment itself. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I must say I have 
difficulty following the arguments of my friend from Idaho. First, I 
have no objection to--in fact, I am very supportive of it--the 
amendment offered by Senator Domenici last week. That has to do with 
hazardous fuels reduction, $120 million going to the Forest Service, 
$120 million going to BLM. I am for that.
  As the Senator knows, that is a separate budget category entirely 
than the issue of the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment. That is a subcategory 
of fire operations. What we are talking about is preparedness money, a 
totally different concept.
  The issue is not whether Lake Tahoe could be harmed. Lake Tahoe does 
not have a commercial harvest timber program as such. It is minimal. We 
are talking about the money that is necessary to do the hazardous fuels 
reduction. The Senator from Nevada is very supportive of that. The 
Senator from Nevada wants to see more money set aside for preparedness 
and planning which is cost effective.
  Let me, by way of an additional comment, point out that the program 
which the Senator from Nevada supports is cost effective; that is, it 
saves taxpayers dollars. It is a savings. The argument that the Senator 
from Idaho made refers to a program that has cost taxpayers, between 
1992 and 1997, $2 billion. We are subsidizing them. I do not think that 
is a particularly good value.
  But even though I might not think it is a particularly good value, I 
have not sought to eliminate that program. That program would be 
funded, if the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment were offered, for $220 
million. That is what the President recommended.
  So what we are simply trying to do is to reprogram some of that money 
into an area that would be cost effective, in terms of planning and 
preparedness--something that all of the agencies that interface with 
the urban, forest, local, State, and Federal support and favor--and 
simply reduce, by the amount of $30 million, the amount that would go 
into a timber harvest program that has been found, by the GAO, and 
other internal reports, to be cost ineffective in a substantial 
subsidy.
  So the issue is not, as my colleague from Idaho suggested, whether 
you favor timber harvest in the national forests--that is not the issue 
we are debating today; maybe he wants to make that the issue--but the 
question of where you allocate the funds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRYAN. I will yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. We checked with the Forest Service when we prepared the

[[Page 14668]]

Forest Service budget, and their preparedness program has been fully 
budgeted for the year. They told us that it was adequate to meet their 
needs, and the current needs.
  Does the Senator know otherwise?
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada believes it is not adequate. 
Indeed, I think the amount of money that has been----
  Mr. CRAIG. Even though the chief and his budget people say it is? I 
see. That is what we understood. Does the Senator now have information 
from the Forest Service that says otherwise?
  Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator follows that line of reasoning, would he 
not agree the same managers will tell you that $220 million is adequate 
for the timber harvest program, would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. CRAIG. No, not at all, because what we did with the $220 
million----
  Mr. BRYAN. Did they argue for more?
  Mr. CRAIG. Are you talking about timber harvest or the fuel reduction 
program?
  Mr. BRYAN. The program that is called timber harvest.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am quite sure they would say that it is funded 
adequately because this administration does not want to cut trees 
commercially.
  Mr. BRYAN. You can't have it both ways.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes, we can, because I am giving categorical facts that 
the President's chief of the Forest Service said the preparedness 
program was fully funded. That is all I am saying.
  Mr. BRYAN. I would say to the Senator from Idaho, I thought we were 
all Americans, and these positions did not represent a particular 
party; they represent the entire country. The national forests belong 
not to Democrats or Republicans.
  Mr. CRAIG. Now, the chief is a political appointee.
  Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BRYAN. I would yield for one more question.
  Mr. CRAIG. In the Tahoe Basin Restoration Program, that is near and 
dear to the Senator--and it is to me; it is a beautiful part of our 
country.
  Mr. BRYAN. It is indeed.
  Mr. CRAIG. Where trees must be removed--merchantable timber--there 
are areas where thinning is clearly necessary and so proscribed under 
the act.
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada would agree with that.
  Mr. CRAIG. Those would be under the commercial logging program 
because they could be done for less money and more efficiently. And 
that is the point of my argument, I say to the Senator. That is the 
program you are cutting.
  Mr. BRYAN. I am not sure I would agree with the Senator from Idaho. 
Clearly, the hazardous fuels reduction program, in which we have 
provided, as you pointed out, 120 million additional dollars, would be 
the program that would address that issue, in my judgment.
  I know other colleagues need to speak.
  Mr. CRAIG. We yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Connecticut has 
an amendment, so I will defer to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the extremely distinguished occupant of the 
chair. I also thank my friend from Oklahoma. I will try to respond to 
his graciousness by being brief.


                           Amendment No. 3811

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3811, which I 
filed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3811.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 provide funding for maintenance of a Northeast Home 
                  Heating Oil Reserve, with an offset)

       On page 183, strike line 15 and insert ``$165,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $8,000,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer of unobligated balances of funds 
     previously appropriated under the heading ``naval petroleum 
     and oil shale reserves'', and of which $8,000,000 shall be 
     available for maintenance of a Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve.''.
       On page 225, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of Amendment No. 6 to the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan transmitted by the Secretary 
     of Energy on July 10, 2000, under section 154 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6234), the Secretary 
     may draw down product from the Regional Distillate Reserve 
     only on a finding by the President that there is a severe 
     energy supply interruption.
       (b) Severe Energy Supply Interruption.--
       (1) In general.--For the purposes of subsection (a), a 
     severe energy supply interruption shall be deemed to exist if 
     the President determines that--
       (A) a severe increase in the price of middle distillate oil 
     has resulted from an energy supply interruption; or
       (B)(i) a circumstance other than that described in 
     subparagraph (A) exists that constitutes a regional supply 
     shortage of significant scope or duration; and
       (ii) action taken under this section would assist directly 
     and significantly in reducing the adverse impact of the 
     supply shortage.
       (2) Severe increase in the price of middle distillate 
     oil.--For the purposes of paragraph (1)(A), a severe increase 
     in the price of middle distillate oil'' shall be deemed to 
     have occurred if--
       (A) the price differential between crude oil and 
     residential No. 2 heating oil in the Northeast, as determined 
     by the Energy Information Administration, increases by--
       (i) more than 15 percent over a 2-week period;
       (ii) more than 25 percent over a 4-week period; or
       (iii) more than 60 percent over its 5-year seasonally 
     adjusted rolling average; and
       (B) the price differential continues to increase during the 
     most recent week for which price information is available.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with 
my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and Senator Leahy of 
Vermont. I ask unanimous consent Senators Dodd and Leahy be added as 
cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we think this amendment is critical for 
the energy security of the Northeastern United States. Last winter, in 
the Northeast, we were really whacked by oil market whims, as we saw 
the prices of home heating oil soar, and we hovered dangerously close 
to heating oil supply shortages.
  In New England, the price of home heating oil rose from an average of 
$1.18 a gallon to about $1.79 a gallon in just 3 weeks' time.
  Some residents of my State were actually paying over $2 for a gallon 
of heating oil, which meant they were spending almost $500--some of 
them--to fill their tanks. Of course, lower income residents and fixed-
income residents, including thousands of elderly, were faced with the 
tough choice of buying heating oil for their homes or food for their 
tables.
  This burdensome situation was caused by high crude oil prices, 
resulting from low crude oil supplies and low stocks of home heating 
oil converging with a downward turn in the weather that led to these 
price shocks that so disrupted the Northeast.
  There were a series of meetings and much concern last winter. I think 
one of the best ideas that emerged was to build on the strategic crude 
oil reserve that we have and to create a regional Northeast home 
heating oil reserve in which the Government would possess home heating 
oil, which at times of crisis could be moved out into the market to 
increase supply and therefore reduce price.
  I recall that one of the places that this idea was discussed was at a 
bipartisan meeting of Members of Congress from the Northeast with the 
President at the White House. He said he would take this under 
advisement. In fact, President Clinton did act to create a Northeast 
home heating oil reserve earlier this month, pursuant to his 
congressionally authorized authority under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act.

[[Page 14669]]

  This amendment, which Senators Dodd and Leahy and I offer, would 
appropriate $4 million to maintain the Northeast heating oil reserve 
that the President has now created. The President has directed that the 
reserve be filled with home heating oil by conducting oil exchanges 
with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Therefore, there is no initial 
cost of filling the reserve.
  However, the funding that is made possible by this amendment is 
critical for maintaining the reserve. The reserve itself is an integral 
piece of ensuring that if we do encounter exorbitant prices and short 
supplies again this winter, we will be able to count on our own 
publicly owned reserves of heating oil to get us through the crisis.
  In fact, the following Energy Information Agency report, 
unfortunately, indicates that the industry at the current time is way 
below the desirable level of building up inventories of home heating 
oil, which means that if this continues as we head toward the winter 
and the weather turns cold, people in our region of the country are 
going to be suffering economically and physically. So that is the 
intention of offering this amendment.
  I do want to indicate that I am exercising my prerogative as sponsor 
of the amendment to modify the amendment by striking the section of the 
amendment that begins on line 8 on the first page, and ends at the end 
of the document. This section describes an appropriate trigger 
mechanism for releasing the home heating oil reserve. In addition, I 
want to change the amount of funding requested from $8 million to $4 
million. Finally, I would like to specify that the offset for these 
funds would come from unobligated funds from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve petroleum account in the amount of $3 million, and $1 million 
from the Naval Petroleum Reserve and oil shale reserves.


                    Amendment No. 3811, As Modified

  Mr. President, I send to the desk, therefore, a copy of the amendment 
as it emerges after the modifications that I have just announced, which 
is effectively a $4 million appropriation for this regional reserve the 
President has created.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 183, strike line 15 and insert ``$165,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $3,000,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer of unobligated balances of funds 
     previously appropriated under the heading ``STRATEGIC 
     PETROLEUM RESERVES PETROLEUM ACCOUNT'', and of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of unobligated 
     balances of funds previously appropriated under the heading 
     ``NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES'', and of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be available for maintenance of a Northeast 
     Home Heating Oil Reserve.''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the Interior appropriations bill that I think is critical for the 
energy security of the Northeastern United States. My amendment would 
fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which was created by the 
President on Monday, July 10. The President created this reserve under 
his Congressionally authorized authority under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act.
  The Northeast region of the country is heavily dependent upon home 
heating oil--instead of natural gas, as is the case in much of the rest 
of the country--for heating homes and other buildings during cold 
months of the year. As heating oil is refined from crude oil that is 
produced both domestically and abroad, the price of heating oil is 
subject to the same market whims that we have seen and continue to see 
in gasoline and other petroleum products. The difference, however, is 
that when a family runs out of heating oil, they literally run out of 
heat. This is a dangerous situation in the Northeast, where people may 
face days at a time of icy-cold weather.
  This part winter in the Northeast, we got a taste of market whims as 
we saw the prices of home heating oil soar, and as we hovered 
dangerously close to heating oil supply shortages. The price of home 
heating oil rose from an average in New England of $1.18 per gallon to 
about $1.79 per gallon in three weeks. Some residents were paying over 
$2.00 for a gallon of heating oil. Lower-income residents were faced 
with buying heat for their homes versus food for their tables. In this 
instance, we saw high crude oil prices and low stocks of heating oil 
converge with extremely cold weather, leading to the price shocks that 
so disrupted the Northeast. We saw a similar situation in 1996, when 
prices of heating oil soared.
  I want to offer my amendment to ensure that this type of problem does 
not happen again. My amendment would appropriate four million dollars 
to maintain the Northeast heating oil reserve that the President has 
created. The President has directed that the reserve be filled with 
home heating oil by conducting oil exchanges with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. Therefore, there is no initial cost to filling the 
reserve. However, this funding is critical for maintaining the reserve. 
The reserve itself is an integral piece to ensuring that if we do 
encounter exorbitant prices and short supplies again, we will be able 
to count on our own reserves of heating oil to get us through the 
crisis.
  I would like to exercise my prerogative to modify my amendment by 
striking the section of the amendment that begins on line 8 on the 
first page and ends at the end of the document--this section describes 
an appropriate trigger mechanism for releasing home heating oil from 
the regional reserve. In addition, I would like to change the amount of 
funding requested from eight million dollars to four million dollars. 
Finally, I would like to specify that the offset for these funds will 
come from unobligated funds from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
Petroleum Account in the amount of three million dollars and from the 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves in the amount of one million 
dollars.
  Senator Dodd joins me in offering this amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for 
his explanation and for the modifications which have at least brought 
this amendment within the parameters of the bill itself. I must say, 
without going into it, I think there are several serious policy 
questions about this amendment, but more than that I think it needs to 
be resolved in the context of a reauthorization of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act. I understand the Senator from Connecticut is 
working with the chairman of the committee on that, and so we can defer 
our final decision until tomorrow.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to an amendment 
that would make drastic cuts to the timber program.
  While we have heard a lot of rhetoric regarding the timber program, 
it is important to understand the context within which these cuts to 
the timber sale and road construction programs are being considered. 
Federal timber sales are in a steep and devastating decline. Forest 
health is increasingly at risk from fire, insects and disease.
  Both the economic and ecological contexts created by this reduction 
are undesirable.
  More than 80,000 jobs have been lost and a 1999 General Accounting 
Office study reported that over forty million acres of National Forest 
system lands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire. Another twenty-six 
million acres are at risk from insects and disease. The recent fires in 
New Mexico and in other states provide alarming evidence of the impact 
of increased fuel loads in our forests. Already this year, more than 
four-and-a-half million acres have burned. Active management is vital 
to forest health, and it is irresponsible for the federal government to 
reduce the management options available to local forest managers who 
best know how to deal with their specific situations.
  It is confounding that additional cuts in the federal timber sale 
program are being considered at a time when the industry and those 
working men and women who depend on it has already

[[Page 14670]]

been crippled by deep cuts and our forests are suffering from lack of 
active management that includes responsible timber harvest. Since the 
early 1990s, the timber program has been reduced by 70 percent and more 
than 75 percent of the National Forest system is off-limits to timber 
harvest. The federal timber supply has dropped from twelve billion 
board-feet harvested to three billion board-feet harvested annually. 
This amendment would jeopardize 55,000 jobs and $2 billion in 
employment income, mostly in rural areas. In addition, national forests 
have 50 percent of our nation's softwood growing stock, which is used 
for home construction. New reductions in the availability of this 
supply will hurt housing prices.
  In my home State of Idaho, small, rural communities continue to 
suffer devastating reductions in Forest Service Payments-to-states 
funds from timber sales. In rural Idaho and America, schools are going 
without needed renovation, county governments are struggling, and basic 
services are already being jeopardized by steep reductions in federal 
timber harvest in recent years. This amendment would further reduce 
payments to rural counties by $7 million and returns to the treasury by 
$30 million.
  While some will claim that recreation receipts can replace timber 
receipts, this simply is not true in Idaho. Eight counties in Idaho 
derive more than 20 percent of their employment activity from the 
primary timber industry. There are only two counties in Idaho that have 
more than a 5 percent dependence on the recreation industry.
  This amendment is also counterintuitive from an environmental 
perspective. Active forest management, including thinning and other 
timber harvest, has widely acknowledge benefits. In fact, most timber 
sales are currently designed to attain other stewardship objectives. 
Interestingly enough, it is the sales that have been planned to focus 
on stewardship objectives that have been criticized as below cost. 
Timber sales are the most economical, efficient, and effective method 
available to local resource managers to treat and control many insect 
epidemics. These harvests contribute greatly to reducing the risk of 
catastrophic wildfire and promoting diverse stands.
  Each year, the National Forest system grows 23 billion board-feet. 
Six billion board-feet die naturally. Only 3 billion board-feet are 
harvested annually. Tree growth in the National Forest system exceeds 
harvest by 600 percent. There is no need, environmental or otherwise, 
to further cripple this important program. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment and for the health of rural economies and the 
forests within the National Forest system.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, that would cut 
funding for the United States Forest Service's Timber Sale program. Our 
Nation is experiencing a renaissance in Forest Health initiatives. The 
terrible tragedies suffered in New Mexico earlier this summer have 
awakened our understanding of the current state of our forests.
  These forests, that traditionally housed wildlife and produced 
valuable resources used in building our Nation, have become deadly fire 
time bombs. The Forest Service itself has reported that more than 40 
million acres of our National Forest System are at high risk of 
destruction by catastrophic wildfire and an additional 23 million acres 
are at risk from insects and disease. And yet, at a time when national 
awareness is up, and we have an increased commitment to improve forest 
health, there are still those critics who would remove the Forest 
Service's single most effective tool for restoring forest health.
  The use of modern silviculture practices in regards to Federal timber 
sales are designed to accomplish a number of goals and objectives in 
regards to forest management. And they do so in a way that provides 
jobs for local communities, and money for rural schools and counties. 
We have also just begun to realize the value that a well-designed and 
carefully conducted timber sale can have on things like water quality 
and the future of a healthy water table.
  The city of Denver had to learn this the hard way. Several years ago 
a fire swept through the city's watershed and turned the surrounding 
ecosystem into ashes. Since then, the city has had to pay millions of 
dollars to dredge and remove silt and other particles carried into its 
water supply. What the city learned is that fires, not timber sales are 
the biggest threat to watershed health. The city now actively manages 
its watershed and conducts regular assessment and thinnings to maintain 
a healthy, fire resilient forest.
  Notice I said fire resilient, not fire resistant. Fire can be an 
invaluable management tool when conducted under the proper 
circumstances. Those conditions, however, do not exist in Western 
forests, nor will they exist until our forest managers are allowed to 
thin out the forests and remove the dense undergrowth and some of the 
increasingly taller layers of trees that create the deadly fuel ladders 
that feed catastrophic fires.
  I am also deeply concerned about the impact this amendment could have 
on rural economies. The United States is importing more and more wood 
every year as a result of declines in federal timber sales. This means 
that the American lumber market is being fed by highly-subsidized 
timber that was produced under conditions that do not meet our Nation's 
high environmental standards. As a result, not only do we loose the 
environmental benefits that federal timber sales can produce, but we 
are feeling negative social and economic effects as America jobs are 
lost and moved offshore. The brunt of these losses are felt most keenly 
in rural areas, where forest products jobs are concentrated.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to add that the Federal 
Timber Sale Program is not a subsidy for the forest products industry. 
Federal timber contractors do not receive any special benefit, nor do 
they pay less money for the timber they harvest on federal lands. 
Federal timber is sold by means of a competitive bid system. As a 
result, these auction sales are the most likely of any type of 
commercial transaction to generate the returns that meet or exceed 
market value. Because timber sales are designed to generate market 
value prices, we therefore must conclude that there is no subsidy.
  Furthermore, the forest products industry has consistently 
demonstrated that the benefits gained by the public through the Federal 
timber sale program far outweigh the costs to the Federal treasury. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Bryan's amendment and to 
support our National Forest and rural communities.


                           Amendment No. 3884

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3884.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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 defend the Constitutional system of checks and balances 
            between the Legislative and Executive branches)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  . FUNDING FOR NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall 
     be used to establish or expand a national monument under the 
     Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) after July 17, 
     2000, except by Act of Congress.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment basically says: 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be used to 
establish or expand a national monument under the act of June 8, 1906, 
the Antiquities Act, after July 17, 2000, except by an Act of Congress.
  What I am trying to do is to make sure we don't have additional 
national monuments declared by this administration without some 
congressional input.

[[Page 14671]]

  I will insert a copy of the Antiquities Act for the Record. It was 
passed in 1906. The Antiquities Act states:

       The President of the United States is authorized, in his 
     discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic 
     landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 
     objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated 
     upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the 
     United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a 
     part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all 
     cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with 
     the proper care and management of the objects to be 
     protected.

  That is the Antiquities Act.
  This administration, particularly this year, has added millions of 
acres under the designation of national monuments without congressional 
authorization or approval, without consent of Governors, without 
consent of local entities. I am saying there is another process. I 
happen to serve on the Energy Committee with Chairman Murkowski and 
others. We pass land bills all the time. I urge the President, if he 
wants to pass or declare something a national monument, send it to 
Congress. We are happy to look at it. We are happy to pass it. This is 
a committee that works in a bipartisan fashion. We pass land bills all 
the time. This week we are supposed to mark up 17. We do that in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  I also will include for the Record a comparison of lands that have 
been added as national monuments during all the Presidents.
  This Antiquities Act passed under Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. It is 
interesting to note, Theodore Roosevelt, who was quite the 
conservationist, made some very significant additions to the national 
monuments, the total acreage of which was 1.5 million acres. President 
Clinton has done more than that this year alone. As a matter of fact, 
President Clinton has already designated 3.7 million acres. He has done 
more than any other President of the United States, with the exception 
of President Carter, who added a lot of land in the State of Alaska.
  It is also interesting to note that the State of Alaska Senators had 
amended the Antiquities Act to say no lands should be made into a 
national monument that exceeds 5,000 acres unless there is an act of 
Congress. That doesn't apply to the rest of the country.
  This administration, while they had designated 1.7 million acres in 
the first 7 years, in this year, since January, has already declared 2 
million acres a national monument. There is some talk that there are 
additional monuments in the works. If there are, great. If this 
amendment passes--I hope and expect that it will--I am sure Congress 
will be happy to receive the request from the President. We will review 
it. We will consider it. We will have hearings. We will go through the 
legislative process. We will hear from the Governors. We will hear from 
local entities. We will make a decision, as the process should be.
  I believe the President's actions, particularly this year, have 
greatly exceeded what is called for in the Antiquities Act. Again, in 
the Antiquities Act, it says, that the area:

       . . . in all cases should be confined to the smallest area 
     compatible with the proper care and management of the objects 
     to be protected.

  We should abide by this law. When the President has added 2 million 
acres this year alone, I don't believe he is in compliance with it. I 
think Congress has a legitimate role. If not, are we going to allow the 
President to declare wilderness areas, millions of acres?
  My point is, I may well agree with the President on every single 
designation he has made, but the process needs congressional 
authorization. It needs congressional input; it needs congressional 
hearings. It needs input from local officials and people who are 
directly impacted.
  I hope our colleagues will support this amendment. I appreciate the 
leadership of my friend and colleague, Senator Gorton of Washington, 
and also Senator Byrd. I used to chair the subcommittee. It is a 
challenging subcommittee, one which the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from West Virginia have handled with a great deal of 
professionalism and expertise. I compliment them on their efforts. I 
urge our colleagues to supports this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of Presidents 
and what they have added to the national monuments under the 
Antiquities Act.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                   Presidents and the Antiquities Act

       The following lists units and approximate acreage affected 
     by each President. Where acreage figures are not given they 
     are not available.


                                                                Acreage
Theodore Roosevelt (1906 (Antiquities Act enacted)-1909)
  Chaco Canyon National Monument..............................10,643.13
  Cinder Cone National Monument...................................5,120
  Devil's Tower National Monument..............................1,152.91
  El Morro National Monument........................................160
  Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monuments...........................160
  Grand Canyon I National Monuments.............................808,120
  Lassen Peak National Monument...................................1,280
  Lewis & Clark National Monument...................................160
  Montezuma Castle National Monument.............................161.39
  Mount Olympus National Monument...............................639,000
  Muir Woods National Monument......................................295
  Natural Bridges National Monument.................................120
  Petrified Forest National Monument..........................60,776.02
  Pinnacles National Monument.....................................1,320
  Tonto National Monument...........................................640
  Tumacacori National Monument.......................................10
  Wheeler National Monument.........................................300
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total................................................1,529,418.45
                                                       ================

William H. Taft (1909-1913)
  Big Hole National Monument.....................................655.61
  Colorado National Monument..................................13,466.21
  Devils Postpile National Monument..............................798.46
  Gran Quivara National Monument.................................183.77
  Lewis & Clark National Monument...................................160
                                        Mount Olympus National Monume  
  Mukuntuweap (Zion) National Monument...........................16,000
  Natural Bridges National Monument.................................120
  Navajo National Monument..........................................360
  Oregon Caves National Monument.................................465.80
                                     Petrified Forest National Monume  
  Rainbow Bridges National Monument.................................160
  Shoshone Cavern National Monument.................................210
  Sitka National Monument.........................................51.25
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total...................................................32,631.10
                                                       ================

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
  Bandelier National Monument....................................23,352
  Cabrillo National Monument.........................................50
  Capulin Mountain National Monument.............................640.42
  Casa Grande National Monument.....................................480
                                             Dinosaur National Monume80
                                         Gran Quivira National Monument
  Katmai National Monument....................................1,088,000
                                        Mount Olympus National Monument
  Mukuntuweap (Zion) National Monument...........................76,800
  Natural Bridges National Monument...............................2,740
  Old Kasaan National Monument.......................................43
  Papago Saguaro National Monument.............................2,050.43
  Scotts Bluff National Monument...............................2,503.83
  Sieur de Monts National Monument................................5,000
  Walnut Canyon National Monument...................................960
  Verendrye National Monument....................................253.04

[[Page 14672]]

  Yucca House National Monument......................................10
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total................................................1,202,913.22
                                                       ================

W.G. Harding (1921-1923)
  Bryce Canyon National Monument..................................7,440
  Carlsbad Cave National Monument................................719.22
  Fossil Cycad National Monument....................................320
  Hovenweep National Monument....................................285.80
  Lehman Caves National Monument.................................593.03
  Mound City Group National Monument.................................57
  Papago Saguaro...................................................-110
  Pinnacles National Monument..........................................
  Pipe Spring National Monument.......................................0
  Timpanogos Cave National Monument.................................250
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total....................................................9,555.05
                                                       ================

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
  Castale Pinckney National Monument...............................3.50
  Chaco Canyon National Monument.......................................
  Chiricahua National Monument.................................3,655.12
  Craters of the Moon National Monument.......................22,651.80
                                             Dinosaur National Monument
  Father Millet Cross National Monument............................0074
  Fort Marion (Castillo de San Marcos) National Monument..........18.51
  Fort Matanzas National Monument.....................................1
  Fort Pulaski National Monument.....................................20
  Glacier Bay National Monument...............................2,560,000
  Lava Beds National Monument.................................45,589.92
  Meriwether Lewis National Monument.................................50
                                            Pinnacles National Monument
  Statue of Liberty National Monument..............................2.50
  Wupatki National Monument....................................2,234.10
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total..............................................2,634,226.4574
                                                       ================

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
  Arched National Monument........................................4,520
  Bandelier National Monument..........................................
  Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument..............10,287.95
                                             Colorado National Monument
                                   Crater of the Moon National Monument
  Death Valley National Monument..............................1,601,800
  Grand Canyon II National Monument.............................273,145
  Geat Sand Dunes National Monument...........................35,528.36
  Holy Cross National Monument....................................1,392
                                               Katmai National Monument
                                        Mount Olympus National Monument
  Petrified Forest National Monument.............................11,010
                                            Pinnacles National Monument
  Saguaro National Monument...................................53,510.08
                                         Scotts Bluff National Monument
  Sunset Crater National Monument.................................3,040
  White Sands National Monument..............................131,486.84
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total................................................2,125,720.23
                                                       ================

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945)
  Arches National Monument.......................................29,160
  Big Hole Battlefield National Monument............................195
  Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument..................2,860
  Capitol Reef National Monument.................................37,060
  Ceder Breaks National Monument...............................5,701.39
  Channel Island National Monument.............................1,119.98
                          Crater of the Moon (Deletion of unknown size)
  Death Valley National Monument................................305,920
  Fort Jefferson National Monument...............................47,125
  Fort Laramie National Monument.................................214.41
                                        Fort Matanzas National Monument
  Glacier Bay National Monument.................................904,960
  Grand Canyon II...............................................-71,854
  Jackson Hole National Monument................................210,950
  Joshua Tree National Monument.................................825,340
                                               Katmai National Monument
  Meriwether Lewis National Monument..........................33,631.20
                                     Montezuma Castle National Monument
                                   Mukuntuweap (Zion) National Mo49,150
  Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument...........................330,690
  Pinnacles National Monument..................................4,589.26
  Scotts Bluff National Monument..................................46.17
  Santa Rosa Island National Monument..........................5,500.00
                                   Statute of Liberty National Monument
                                                Tonto National Monument
  Tuzigoot National Monument......................................42.67
                                        Walnut Canyon National Monument
  White Sands National Monument..................................158.91
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total.................................................2,626,559.7
                                                       ================

Harry S. Truman (1953-1961)
  Aztec Ruins National Monument.......................................1
  Channel Island National Monument...............................25,600
  Death Valley National Monument.....................................40
  Effigy Mounds National Monument.................................1,204
  Fort Matanzas National Monument...................................179
                                     Great Sand Dunes National Monument
  Hovenweep National Monument........................................80
  Hovenweep National Monument........................................81
  Lava Beds National Monument.......................................211
  Muir Woods National Monument......................................504
  Sitka National Monument.........................................54,30
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total...................................................27,954.30
                                                       ================

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
  Arches National Monument.........................................-240
  Bandelier National Monument.....................................3,600
  Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument...................-470
  Cabrillo National Monument.........................................80
  Capitol Reef National Monument..................................3,040
  Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Monument.....................4,800
  Colorado National Monument........................................-91
  Edison Laboratory National Monument.................................1
  Fort Pulaski National Monument.......................................
  Glacier Bay National Monument.................................-24,925
  Great Sand Dunes National Monument.............................-8,805
                                            Hovenweep National Monument
  White Sands National Monument.....................................478
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total.....................................................-22,530
                                                       ================

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
  Bandelier National Monument....................................-1,043
  Buck Island Reef National Monument................................850
  Crater of the Moon National Monument............................5,360
  Gila Cliff Dwelling National Monument.............................375
  Natural Bridges National Monument...............................4,916
  Russell Cave National Monument....................................310
  Saguaro National Monument.......................................5,360
                                      Timpanogos Cave National Monument
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total......................................................26,128
                                                       ================

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969
  Arches National Monument.......................................48,943
  Capitol Reef National Monument................................215,056
  Katmai National Monument.......................................54,547

[[Page 14673]]

  Marble Canyon National Monument................................26,080
  Statue of Liberty National Monument................................48
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total.....................................................344,674
                                                       ================

Richard M. Nixon (1969-1973)..........................................0
                                                       ================

Gerald R. Ford (1973-1977)
  Buck Island National Monument......................................30
  Cabrillo National Monument.........................................56
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total..........................................................86
                                                       ================

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
  Admiralty Island National Monument..........................1,100,000
  Aniakchak National Monument...................................350,000
  Becharof National Monument..................................1,200,000
  Bering Land Bridge National Monument........................2,590,000
  Cape Krusenstern National Monument............................560,000
  Denali National Monument....................................3,890,000
  Gates of the Arctic National Monument.......................8,220,000
  Glacier Bay National Monument.................................550,000
  Katmai National Monument....................................1,370,000
  Kenai Fjords National Monument................................570,000
  Kobuk Valley National Monument..............................1,710,000
  Lake Clark National Monument................................2,500,000
  Misty Fiords National Monument..............................2,285,000
  Noatak National Monument....................................5,800,000
  Wrangell-St. Elias National Mlonument......................10,950,000
  Yukon-Charley National Monument.............................1,730,000
  Yukon Flats National Monument..............................10,600,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total..................................................55,975,000
                                                       ================

Ronald W. Reagan (1981-1989)..........................................0
                                                       ================

George Herbert Walker Bush (1989-1993)................................0
                                                       ================

William Jefferson Clinton (1993-Present)
  Aquafria National Monument--established January 11, 2000.......71,100
  California Coastal National Monument (acreage unspecified) 
    established January 11, 2000.....................................  
  Canyon of the Ancients--established June 9, 2000..............164,000
  Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument--established June 9, 2000...52,000
  Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument--established January 11, 
    2000......................................................1,014,000
  Giant Sequoia National Monument--established April 15, 2000...327,769
  Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--established September 
    18, 1996..................................................1,700,000
  Hanford Reach National Monument--established June 9, 2000.....195,000
  Ironwood Forest National Monument--established June 9, 2000...129,000
  Pinnacles National Monument--established January 11, 2000.......7,900
                                                       ________________
                                                       
      Total...................................................3,789,669

  Mr. NICKLES. I mentioned all of the Presidents. President Clinton has 
greatly exceeded the amount of new additions compared to any President, 
with the one exception of President Carter. To give a comparison, 
President Ford added 86 acres in national monuments in his tenure as 
President. President Reagan and President Bush added zero. Teddy 
Roosevelt added 1.5 million acres; William Taft, 32,000 acres. I could 
go on down the list. My point is, the amount President Clinton has 
added this year alone exceeds what almost any other President has done.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the 
Antiquities Act.
  There being no objection, the act was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            Antiquities Act

                         TITLE 16--CONSERVATION

  CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES

   Subchapter LXI--National and International Monuments and Memorials

     SEC. 431. NATIONAL MONUMENTS; RESERVATION OF LANDS; 
                   RELINQUISHMENT OF PRIVATE CLAIMS.

       The President of the United States is authorized, in his 
     discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic 
     landmark, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 
     objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated 
     upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the 
     United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a 
     part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all 
     cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with 
     the proper care and management of the objects to be 
     protected. When such objects are situated upon a tract 
     covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private 
     ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary 
     for the proper care and management of the object, may be 
     relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the 
     Interior is authorized to accept the relinquishment of such 
     tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.

     (June 8, 1906, ch. 3060, Sec. 2, 34 Stat. 225.)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for the leadership he has taken in 
this area. It is so critically important.
  About a month and a half ago, I got a call from the Secretary of the 
Interior, Bruce Babbitt, who said: I am headed to Idaho. I am going to 
look at the Craters of the Moon National Monument. I might want to 
expand it.
  ``I might want to expand it,'' was what he said. It is currently 
54,000 acres. He has recommended that it be expanded to 754,000 acres. 
He doesn't take into consideration grazing. He wants to overlay Park 
Service and BLM management into a confusing new kind of configuration.
  Most importantly--this is the point the Senator from Oklahoma has 
just made--there have been no public hearings, no local input. He went 
around and held some meetings with some affected or potentially 
affected parties.
  If the Congress were handling this, we would have the full NEPA 
process. We would have an EIS. We would incorporate our county 
governments. We would look at the kind of impact this designation would 
have. The Senator is right, he and I might ultimately agree with it, 
but what about the county roads that go through it and some of the 
private roads that go through it and the elimination or the blockage of 
those roads. Those are the kinds of issues this President and this 
Secretary have totally ignored in the name of the Clinton legacy.
  I hope this amendment will pass. It is time we halt this action and 
bring this through the Congress to an appropriate public process to 
sort out all these difficulties. That is what the committee on which 
the Senator from Oklahoma and I serve has the responsibility of doing: 
refining and crafting public policy.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague, Mr. President.
  I know the chairman of the subcommittee wants to address this and 
perhaps other issues.
  One other comment: The President did this first in September of 1996 
prior to the election. I know my colleague from Nevada might remember 
this because he did it with a press conference overlooking the Grand 
Canyon, talking about the addition of a new national monument, except 
the monument he was talking about was not in Arizona, not in the Grand 
Canyon; it was actually in Utah. It was the Grand Staircase National 
Monument, 1.7 million acres. It happened to have billions of dollars of 
raw materials.
  Interestingly enough, the Utah Governor was not consulted. The Utah 
congressional delegation was not consulted. People in the community 
were not consulted. We had a massive land grab, power mineral grab--you 
name it--by the President of the United States for a photo op for 
election purposes that, in my opinion, may have been granted but needed 
congressional input and authorization. That is the purpose of the 
amendment, to make

[[Page 14674]]

sure this type of thing does not continue without at least some input 
from other local officials.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have about 5 minutes remaining. The 
Senator from Nevada is going to introduce two additional amendments, 
quite appropriately, before that.
  In connection with this amendment, however, I need to say that this 
amendment causes a conflict on my part more than any other here. I 
agree with the amendment. I think the power has been misused. I am not 
sure it can be reversed by another President. The Senator from Idaho 
seems to feel that it can be. But I believe we have had a number of 
actions that have raised far more questions than they have actually 
settled.
  By the same token, I know perfectly well if this amendment is in the 
bill that goes to the President, the President will veto the bill. I 
simply say, since I know my friend from Nevada will be on the 
conference committee, I don't intend to send a bill to the President 
that we don't believe he ought to sign, at the very least. I just have 
to leave that notice at this point.
  We have 4 more minutes. I will say one other thing. At least in 
theory, amendments can be brought up and discussed to this bill--the 
amendments that are listed in the unanimous consent agreement--and they 
could be further discussed after the end of the many votes that we have 
tonight.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada so he can introduce the 
remaining amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be temporarily set aside.


                           Amendment No. 3885

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3885.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     for the preventive application of a pesticide containing a 
     known or probable carcinogen, a category I or II acute nerve 
     toxin or a pesticide of the organo-
     phosphate, carbamate, or organo-
     chlorine class as identified by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in National Parks in any area where children may be 
     present.


                Amendment No. 3886 To Amendment No. 3885

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3886 to amendment No. 3885.

  Mr. GORTON. 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 use of funds for application of unapproved 
       pesticides in certain areas that may be used by children)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR APPLICATION OF 
                   UNAPPROVED PESTICIDES IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT MAY 
                   BE USED BY CHILDREN.

       (a) Definition of Pesticide.--In this section, the term 
     ``pesticide'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136).
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be used for the application 
     of a pesticide that is not approved for use by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in any area owned or managed 
     by the Department of the Interior that may be used by 
     children, including any national park.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to ensure that the methods of pest control 
     used by the Department of the Interior do not lead to 
     unacceptable exposure of children to pesticides.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by 
Senators Lincoln, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Roberts, prevents funds from 
being used for the application of any pesticide that is not approved 
for use by the Environmental Protection Agency in any area managed by 
the U.S. Park Service that may be used by children. Further, it directs 
the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with EPA to ensure that 
pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children 
to pesticides.
  Let there be no mistake that every member of this Senate supports the 
protection of children. It is the mandate of the EPA to do so. They are 
already required by law to do so.
  The strict standard that mandates EPA on product approval is: 
``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' That is a tall hurdle.
  The shocking thing about this underlying amendment by the Senator 
from California is that its premise holds that the EPA, is not, I 
repeat, not, doing its job protecting children. Let me repeat, this is 
a referendum on whether EPA is protecting children. Now, I think, that 
if the EPA were paying attention, it would be news to the EPA 
Administrator that her agency is not protecting children. As Chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA/HUD, I have listened to 
countless hours of testimony about the Administrator's devotion to 
protecting children. I would think, that if we had a Sense of the 
Senate that Administrator Browner is not doing her job protecting 
children, we would defeat that.
  I asked the nominee (James V. Aidala) to be Assistant Administrator 
for Toxic Substances of the Environmental Protection Agency if the EPA 
already protects children on military bases from harmful pesticides and 
we got the following response:

       The protection of children is one of our highest 
     priorities. When we register, re-register, or reassess 
     tolerances for existing pesticides we try to ensure that our 
     actions are protective of all consumers, especially children.

  He continued on to say that,

       FQPA requires special protections for infants and children 
     including: an explicit determination that tolerances are safe 
     for children; an additional safety factor, if necessary, to 
     account for uncertainty in data relative to children; and 
     consideration of children's special sensitivity and exposure 
     to pesticide chemicals.

  Let the record also show that the reason that many pesticides are 
used is to protect children from bacteria and disease including asthma, 
encephalitis, malaria, lyme disease, Legionnaires' disease, and other 
diseases all of which that occur here in the U.S.
  Mr. President, what is a pesticide? According to EPA,

       . . . all of these common products are considered 
     pesticides. Cockroach sprays and baits; insect repellents for 
     personal use; rat and other rodent poisons; flea and tick 
     sprays, powders, and pet collars; kitchen, laundry, and bath 
     disinfectants and sanitizer; products that kill mold and 
     mildew; some lawn and garden products, such as week killers; 
     and, some swimming pool chemicals.

  Pesticides eradicate a wide variety of pests, including cockroaches, 
biting insects, algae, bacteria, poisonous Brown Recluse Spiders--as 
found in the U.S. Capitol buildings--and infectious microbes which 
result in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions at food and medical care 
facilities.
  Many common cleaners, disinfectants and sanitizer are used to 
eradicate infectious microbes, bacteria, and algae in bathroom and 
kitchens and nursing homes, hospitals and other health care facilities. 
Cooling systems and water supplies are treated. Chlorine, which is 
registered as a pesticide by EPA could be affected by the underlying 
amendment. Products that sterilize medical equipment are carcinogenic 
and would thus also be affected.
  Used according to EPA--label instructions, pesticides not only 
prevent property damage from termites, but also protect our children. 
West Nile virus and encephalitis, which have been

[[Page 14675]]

detected throughout the mid-Atlantic, are carried by mosquitoes. Deer 
ticks carry lyme disease, and cockroaches have been linked to the 
worsening of asthma symptoms.
  According to the New York Times, asthma is now the most common cause 
of hospitalization among American children affecting a total of five 
million. Deaths among children with the condition rose 78 percent from 
1980 to 1993.
  Again, these pesticides are approved by the EPA following a rigorous 
and science-based process to determine what is safe and what is not 
safe. With our concern for the safety of our children in mind, this 
body passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) unanimously in 1996. 
FQPA was designed to update the safety standards of pesticides 
especially with respect to children and other vulnerable sub-
populations. The Environmental Protection Agency has been implementing 
this law for the past four years. In the regulatory review process EPA 
reviews data from up to 120 tests conducted on pesticides prior to 
registration.
  When registration decisions are made, the EPA includes additional 
safety factors for children. According to EPA, ``. . . these specific 
requirements in the statute will help EPA in its efforts to implement 
the NAS report and ensure that risks to infants and children are always 
considered. . . .'' And, under FIFRA, EPA has the authority to 
immediately cancel the use of any pest control product that it believes 
poses an imminent risk to public health.
  Obviously, EPA has the authority to protect children. Obviously, EPA 
believes that the law protects children. Obviously, EPA believes they 
are protecting children.
  Since the new law in 1996, EPA has re-reviewed thousands of products. 
We are spending about $50 million in taxpayer money to pay full-time 
experts at the EPA to Administer the FQPA and to re-review the 
products. They tell us what is safe and what is not safe.
  Contrary to what was mistakenly represented in previous debate, EPA 
does NOT support this amendment. According to EPA in answers in 
response to questions I submitted for the Record on June 30, 2000, ``. 
. . the amendment has not been subject to a full review by the 
Administration, nor has the Administration taken a position on the 
amendment.''
  With this extensive regulatory process in place and recently updated, 
I cannot support the Senator's proposal to regulate further pesticides 
by completely ignoring and circumventing EPA's aggressive 
implementation of FQPA, as well as the Clinton Administration's entire 
regulatory process. The Senator from California's proposal will 
effectively regulate pesticides from the Senate floor on an 
appropriations bill, which is not only bad science, but bad public 
policy as well, and a process we all should want to avoid. I think if 
we are going to have a referendum on whether the EPA protect's 
children, we should have some cursory review of the subject first.
  I am also not an expert on asthma or encephalitis or lyme's disease 
or salmonella, or e. Coli or Legionnaires' disease or the West Nile 
virus.
  If the Senator from California has some information that says that 
the EPA is not doing their job, then I think the information should be 
reviewed and the EPA should have the opportunity to respond and comment 
and defend itself. If there is an emergency that the Senator from 
California is aware of, EPA has the regulatory authority to deal with 
it and they should. If EPA is not appropriately dealing with an 
emergency, perhaps we should ask the Administrator to tell us why that 
is the case. Absent that, it is not a very good idea for us to be 
substituting our scientific judgment for the judgment of Administrator 
Browner's scientists as to what is and is not safe.
  We also know that according to industry and EPA, there is no legal or 
regulatory or industry ``term of art'' for a ``category I or category 
II acute nerve toxin.'' If we are going to tell EPA to prohibit 
something, EPA should understand what we want them to prohibit. If we 
are going to tell industry that they cannot use a product, they should 
know what product they are forbidden to use.
  One organophosphate, for example, is Raid. Organochlorides, I am 
told, are products that contain carbon and chlorine which wipes out all 
hard surface disinfectants. One such hard surface disinfectant which is 
used daily to clean our bathrooms is Lysol disinfectant. Some of the 
same products are used to clean our cafeteria. Some carcinogens are 
used to sterilize medical equipment.
  The chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations has just 
received a bipartisan letter from the Chairmen and Ranking Members of 
the House committee of jurisdiction stating that this is an issue under 
their jurisdiction which should be dealt with solely through the 
authorization process. The bipartisan letter was signed by Congressmen 
Combest, Stenholm, Goodlatte and Clayton.
  Mr. President, I am continuously amazed at the knowledge and 
dedication of my Senate colleagues but I will admit that I am not an 
expert on organophosphates or nerve toxins. I fear that this issue 
about nerve toxins and organophosphates and ``probable carcinogens'' 
may be a mystery to a good number of my colleagues and it is a horrible 
precedent for regulation, which will impact not only the urban uses of 
pest control products, but also the agricultural uses for our Nation's 
farmers.
  We know that the EPA does not support this amendment. It has not 
reviewed it and I don't expect them to review it during an election 
year.
  My amendment protects children by allowing Carol Browner and her cops 
on the beat to do their job.
  We have a dreadful picture of a bite from a Brown recluse spider. 
This spider is bad news as the picture indicates. This poisonous spider 
was found in the Capitol on more than one occasion and it is called a 
recluse spider because it is hard to discover. In the last three weeks, 
a Senate appropriations staffer was bitten by this spider.
  Used according to EPA-label instructions, pesticides protect our 
children by controlling harmful pests like disease carrying insects, 
infectious bacteria, poison ivy, and other noxious weeds.
  This underlying Boxer amendment would prohibit the use of products 
that have been scientifically tested and approved for use by the EPA to 
help prevent disease and improve the quality of life for all Americans, 
especially children. The EPA has a sound regulatory process in place 
that protects children and provides safe, effective pest control tools 
for use in the farmer's field, the cafeteria, hospitals, playgrounds, 
and the home. To undermine the process of the strictest pesticide 
regulations in the world would not only set a misguided precedent, but 
would indeed threaten the health of our children. It would also send a 
shocking message that our EPA is not following its legal mandate and 
its perpetually-articulated mission of protecting children.
  In summary, the underlying amendment it is unnecessary, it is overly-
broad, it is a horrible precedent and it is encumbered with far-
reaching unintended negative consequences that are harmful to children.
  I just do not believe the U.S. Senate should take an action which 
makes the visitor's centers of our national parks the largest cockroach 
hotels on the planet.
  My amendment prohibits the use of any pesticide not approved by 
Administrator Browner's team and ensures consultation to ensure that 
pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children 
to pesticides. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and 
preserve the effectiveness and the integrity of the science-based 
regulatory system.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the Farm 
Bureau opposing the underlying amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 14676]]




                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2000.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: On behalf of the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, I am writing to express our deep concern and 
     opposition to the Boxer amendment to the Interior 
     Appropriations bill. The amendment as proposed would stop the 
     use of pesticides on public lands, pesticides use to prevent 
     and control noxious weeds, invasive species and other pests 
     that threaten the health and long-term sustainability of 
     those lands. The amendment is without merit or scientific 
     basis and should be defeated.
       This amendment is misguided and would be harmful to the 
     public interest. The current federal laws governing pesticide 
     use, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
     Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Food Quality Protection Act 
     (FQPA) require scores of tests and large amounts of 
     scientific data to be submitted to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) before a pesticide is approved for 
     public use. Products used in accordance with the label are 
     safe. It is essential for public confidence that pesticide 
     decisions be based on sound science and objective regulatory 
     review. This amendment arbitrarily circumvents the regulatory 
     process and creates confusion in the public mind.
       Agricultural producers who farm and ranch on or adjacent to 
     public land face increased threats to their economic 
     viability. The spread of pests, noxious weeds and invasive 
     species represents a real economic burden to farming and 
     ranching operations in many areas, particularly where they 
     are near public lands. Additionally, they pose a substantial 
     environmental and public health risk if left uncontrolled. 
     For example, efforts to control mosquitoes carrying the 
     deadly West Nile encephalitis virus could be threatened by 
     this amendment, as could efforts to control pests such as the 
     Gypsy Moth Caterpillar and Asian Longhorned Beetle that have 
     devastated hardwoods in both our urban and rural areas.
       Please oppose the Boxer amendment to the Interior 
     Appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment I offered on behalf of Senator 
Boxer would limit the use of dangerous pesticides in our national 
parks. In particular, it prohibits the routine use of highly toxic 
pesticides--those containing known or probable carcinogens, acute nerve 
toxins, organophosphates, carbamates, or organochlorines--in our 
national parks, where children may be present.
  Such pesticides could be used in the case of an emergency. This is 
already the policy of the National Park Service. This amendment would 
codify this important policy.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Bond second-degree amendment prevents 
funds from being used for the application of any pesticide that is not 
approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency in any area 
managed by the Park Service that may be used by children, and directs 
the Secretary of Interior to coordinate with EPA to assure pest control 
methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children to pesticides.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3887

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3887.

  Mr. REID. 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 express the sense of the Senate regarding the protection 
          of Indian program monies from judgment fund claims)

       On page 163, after line 23, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) in 1990, pursuant to the Indian Self Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 U.S.C. et seq., a class 
     action lawsuit was filed by Indian tribal contractors and 
     tribal consortia against the United States, the Secretary of 
     Interior and others seeking redress for failure to fully pay 
     for indirect contract support costs (Ramah Navajo Chapter v. 
     Babbitt, 112 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1997));
       (2) the parties negotiated a partial settlement of the 
     claim totaling $76,200,000 which was approved by the court on 
     May 14, 1999;
       (3) the partial settlement was paid by the United States on 
     September 14, 1999, in the amount of $82,000,000;
       (4) the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304, was established to 
     pay for legal judgments awarded to plaintiffs who have filed 
     suit against the United States;
       (5) the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 requires that the 
     Judgment Fund be reimbursed by the responsible agency 
     following the payment of an award from the Fund;
       (6) because the potential exists that Indian program funds 
     in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health 
     Service (IHS) would be used in Fiscal Year 2001 to reimburse 
     the Judgment Fund, resulting in significant financial and 
     administrative disruptions in the BIA, the IHS, and the 
     Indian tribes who rely on such funds;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services should declare Indian 
     program funds unavailable for purposes of reimbursing the 
     judgment fund; and
       (2) if the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     the Department of Health and Human Services determines that 
     there are no other available funds, the agencies through the 
     Administration should seek an appropriation of funds from 
     Congress to provide for reimbursement of the judgment fund.

                      kyoto protocol restrictions

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the FY 2001 Interior 
and Related Appropriations Act, I would like to take a moment to ask 
the distinguished subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member a clarifying 
question concerning Section 329 of the bill. That section, as my 
colleagues know, contains language concerning the implementation of the 
Kyoto Protocol.
  Mr. President, the Senate has clearly expressed its views regarding 
the Kyoto Protocol in S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel resolution adopted 
unanimously by the Senate on July 25, 1997. That resolution calls on 
the Administration to support an approach to climate change that 
protects the economic interests of the United States and seeks 
commitments from developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. The Administration is aggressively engaging developing 
countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through international 
projects and activities emphasizing market-based mechanisms and 
environmental technology. Furthermore, the U.S. is currently engaged in 
climate change negotiations to ensure meaningful participation of 
developing countries and to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions 
reductions are achieved in the most cost-effective manner.
  Mr. President, I ask my friend from West Virginia if my understanding 
is correct that Section 329 of the FY 2001 Interior bill is not 
intended to restrict the Administration from engaging in these 
international negotiations related to both the Framework Convention on 
Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate in 1992, and the Kyoto 
Protocol to that Convention? Am I also correct in my understanding that 
Section 329 is not intended to restrict international programs or 
activities to encourage commitments by developing countries to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the question from my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont, whose background in international 
affairs is well known and impressive, indeed. In response, I say to my 
friend that his understanding is correct, Section 329 is not intended 
to restrict U.S. negotiations or the other activities such as he has 
described. On the contrary, the section is intended to prevent the 
Administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to itss 
ratification by the Senate.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I concur with the statement just provided 
by the Senator from West Virginia.


                        sea turtle conservation

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, will the distinguished Chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will gladly yield to a question from my 
good friend from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman. I want 
to commend the gentleman from Washington and the distinguished ranking

[[Page 14677]]

member for the great leadership they have demonstrated in crafting the 
FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill. Gentlemen, last year you were both 
instrumental in securing funds for a project of great personal interest 
to Senator Lott and myself, the Kemp's ridley sea turtle project. The 
project, funded in part through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a 
twenty-year-old on-going success story in the recovery of a highly 
endangered species. Since 1978, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service has spearheaded the sea turtle conservation work at Rancho 
Nuevo, Mexico. This collaborative conservation project with the Mexican 
government and the U.S. shrimp industry, through the National Fisheries 
Institute, protects Kemp's ridley sea turtle nests and females from 
predation and other hazards, and ensures that young turtles make it 
into the sea. I am pleased to report that this Spring, the project has 
reached an all time success level with some 750 turtles laying eggs in 
over 5,000 nests, a record in the past 40 years. However, this year, 
despite the demonstrable success of the project, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service did not request funds for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle project. 
I am extremely concerned and want to express my strong support for 
continued funding for this valuable conservation effort.
  Mr. GORTON. It is clear from my friend's statement that he knows much 
about the sea turtle conservation protect, and I share his enthusiasm 
for these important efforts to project the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. 
While I am keenly aware of the fiscal constraints on the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, I once again encourage the Service to consider 
providing whatever support it can within these existing budget 
constraints.
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with my colleagues from Washington and Louisiana. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service should make every effort to support this 
project in order to uphold a scientifically justified success in 
endangered species management.


   regarding the need for emergency funding for the washakie dam in 
                    wyoming's wind river reservation

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator 
Gorton, for helping me address the need for emergency funding for the 
Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of Central Wyoming. On June 1, 2000, Gary 
Collins, Director of Tribal Water Engineers Office for the Shoshone and 
Arapaho Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation in central Wyoming 
announced the need to evacuate homes down river from the Washakie Dam. 
The evacuation was the result of a ``first fill'' test being conducted 
by the tribe for the newly refurbished Washakie Dam. In accordance with 
first fill protocol and criteria, the dam was filled to the first of 
two target levels and then held at that first level for a specified 
number of days to allow inspection of the dam's operation. Because of 
unusually high seepage at a key structural point--50 gallons per minute 
at the toe of the dam, however, the tribe implemented its Emergency 
Action Plan, ordered the down stream evacuation and conducted temporary 
repairs to stop the flow. The repairs were successful and the immediate 
danger temporarily abated.
  While the seep is now under control, the first fill protocol is still 
to be completed. Under normal conditions, the tribe would have 
restarted the first fill protocol and would have refilled the dam to 
test it again for additional seepage or any other problems. There is 
not enough water, however, to complete the first fill on the Washakie 
Dam. Wyoming, along with the rest of the west is suffering from a 
serious drought situation. The first fill test will not be completed 
until next spring when, hopefully, we will have enough snowfall to 
generate the water needed to fill the reservoir.
  As with the first fill of any dam, there is always a concern that 
some unanticipated event will occur which requires immediate action to 
protect life and property. The reconstruction project was finished 
ahead of time, and under budget, but the remaining funds will be 
inadequate to respond to any catastrophic incident. It makes much more 
sense to set aside funds up front to mitigate a possible catastrophe, 
than to spend millions of additional dollars, and possibly lose human 
life, for a disaster that could have been averted.
  The decision by Congress to provide emergency funding for incidents 
before they occur is not without precedent. For example, in 1997 the 
U.S. Congress provided funds to prevent flooding in and around Devil's 
Lake in North Dakota. No actual disaster had occurred, but impending 
weather conditions threatened surrounding communities and we provided 
the means to avert disaster.
  I am therefore asking my colleague for his thoughts on what we can do 
to help out the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and ensure 
the safety of the residents living around the Washakie Dam.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
and recognize the potential severity of the situation at the Washakie 
Dam.
  I would like to assure my colleague that I will work with him to 
ensure that adequate funding is available to make any necessary repairs 
to the dam or to conduct other activities necessary to ensure the 
safety of people living in the vicinity of the dam.


                         hazardous fuel removal

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I'm pleased to sponsor Senator Domenici's 
amendment, number 3782, to the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill which adds critical funding to the budgets 
of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service for hazardous 
fuel removal. These funds are necessary to address the immediate 
threats to wildland/urban interface areas across the country which are 
surrounded by public lands choking with natural fuels build-up from a 
half-century of fire suppression. The Los Alamos fire was a tragic 
reminder of the threat that exists today around many communities. In my 
own state of Arizona, which has the largest ponderosa pine forest in 
the world, the communities of Flagstaff, Tucson, Summer Haven, Pinetop-
Lakeside, Showlow, and countless others are virtually surrounded by the 
national forest.
  The work being done by the Ecological Restoration Institute at 
Northern Arizona University to address forest ecosystem restoration is 
world-class. I believe my colleagues are aware of the forest treatment 
and public education programs there. I understand that an agreement was 
reached to provide $8.8 million directly to the Ecological Restoration 
Institute for its ongoing efforts from within the funds made available 
to the Bureau of Land Management. Is this correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I'm glad to have the Senator from Arizona as a sponsor 
of my amendment, which does provide additional necessary funding to the 
BLM and the Forest Service for fuels reduction. And I am aware of the 
work being done by the Ecological Restoration Institute. My staff met 
with the director of the program. It is my understanding that, from 
within funds provided for the Bureau of Land Management in this 
amendment, $8.8 million is provided for the Ecological Restoration 
Institute.
  Mr. GORTON. That is what we have agreed to, with the concurrence of 
Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. I am in agreement with that understanding.


                     historical sites in new jersey

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished 
managers of the bill if they would consider a request I have concerning 
the conference.
  Mr. GORTON; I would be happy to consider a request from my colleague 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I rise to talk about two sites in New Jersey which 
are worthy of federal funding for their protection. I would hope that 
should additional funding become available, the Senate would consider 
providing federal funding to contribute to the acquisition of these 
sites.
  The first is The Historic New Bridge Landing, located in Bergen 
County, New Jersey. I am concerned that this site will be lost unless 
federal protection is afforded to it. In November 1776,

[[Page 14678]]

reeling from a series of devastating defeats in Brooklyn and Manhattan, 
the Continental Army fled across the Hudson River to New Jersey. The 
Red Coats, in hot pursuit, continually forced Washington to retreat.
  After crossing New Bridge, Washington instructed a contingent of 
troops to dismantle the bridge and protect the army's rear. Though 
unable to destroy the bridge, Washington's troops held off the British 
long enough to allow the Army to escape.
  This bridge called ``The Bridge that Saved a Nation,'' was 
strategically situated at the narrows of the Hackensack River. The 
bridge and surrounding area were a hotly contested battleground, 
encampment ground, military intelligence post and headquarters. In 
1780, when the Continental army regained control of the area 
surrounding the New Bridge, Washington used the Steuben house as a 
headquarters and stayed in a second floor bedroom.
  This property has been the object of attention for historians and 
preservationists for many years. The historical significance of this 
has been confirmed; the site is listed on both the New Jersey and 
National Registers of Historic Places. In addition, in 1999, the site 
was named among the 10 Most Endangered Historic Sites in New Jersey by 
Preservation New Jersey, a private state-wide historic preservation 
organization. Finally, this site is included in the National Park 
Service's Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield study, which 
aims to catalog important sites in need of protection.
  New Bridge Landing encompasses 18 acres on both sides of the 
Hackensack River in Central Bergen County, New Jersey. Commercial 
development, neglect and time, have combined to erode and threaten to 
destroy this historically significant site. Since 1995, the Historic 
New Bridge Landing Commission has been working toward the establishment 
of a major new historic and cultural park at Historic New Bridge 
Landing, in Central Bergen County, NJ. The Commission has established a 
General Management Plan which outlines the objectives of the proposed 
park.
  Today, this site remains a hotly contested battleground, and while 
the nature of the battle is different, the importance of prevailing is 
no less important. New Jersey has undergone a revolution from ``Garden 
State'' to ``Suburban State,'' More than 40 percent of New Jersey is 
developed. New Jersey is by far the most built-over state in the nation 
and it is number 1 in the rate at which it is losing its open space. 
Since 1961, New Jersey has lost over half a million acres to sprawl. 
The area adjacent to New Bridge Landing have not been spared. Virtually 
all of the land adjacent to the site has been developed. This 
development is visible from the site, altering its character and 
diminishing the visitor's experience of the park's historic landscape.
  Mr. President, I would like to introduce this letter from the 
National Park Service testifying to the importance of Historic New 
Bridge Landing, and the need for federal efforts to preserve and 
protect it. Historic New Bridge Landing is worthy of our protection, 
and I would hope that the Senate would consider providing funding for 
the protection of this important site.
  The second site which I rise today to speak in support of, is the 
Glen Gray Boy Scout Camp, located in the heart of the Ramapo Mountains, 
in New Jersey.
  Much like the rest of my state, this 850 acre tract is threatened 
with development. Sprawl threatens to eat away at this pristine site, 
and the remainder of the Highlands. New Jersey knows all too well the 
peril of sprawl and has paid a terrible price at the hands of 
developers of shopping malls and subdivisions.
  An average of 10,000 acres of rural/agricultural land is being 
developed piecemeal every year in New Jersey. The NY-NJ Highlands has 
seen a 60 percent increase in urbanization in the last 25 years, and is 
expected to absorb a 14 percent increase in population by 2010. Years 
ago, we made an important step in the preservation of the Highlands 
with the effort to protect Sterling Forest. This effort was aided by a 
study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands Region, conducted by the 
Forest Service.
  That study also found the Highlands to be of national significance 
due to the diversity and quality of its natural resources and 
landscape. In addition, the study confirmed threats from development to 
water quality, critical open space, and recreational resources.
  The Highlands regional study has shown us that this region is 
deserving of federal funding to allow for its protection. I am hopeful 
that the Committee will share my concern for this region, and commit 
funding for its protection.
  I realize that the Committee faces many demands when putting this 
bill together. While these requests were not included in the bill, I 
would ask the Committee to consider funding for these worthy projects 
in the Conference.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and assure him that 
the Committee recognizes the importance of protecting threatened lands 
throughout the country.


                             idaho programs

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding several important, proposed 
projects under the jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee?
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Idaho to 
discuss this important issue.
  Mr. CRAIG. First, allow me to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 
Member for their hard work on the Fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill. Despite scarce resources and tough 
choices, they came up with a fiscally responsible bill that meets 
important priorities, which I support.
  There are some important projects to be funded in this bill that I 
would like to work with the Chairman on.
  We are proud to be the home of Lake Coeur d'Alene in North Idaho. It 
has become a world-class destination for all sorts of outdoor 
activities--from golf to water sports to mountain biking. This tourism 
is important to the local economy and the ability to partake in these 
activities is vital to the local residents' quality of life. I know the 
Chairman is very familiar with the area, since it is a short distance 
from Spokane, Washington and is a popular recreation destination for 
many of his constituents.
  The problem we have encountered is a lack of public boat launching 
facilities. Most of the lake front land around the lake is privately 
owned, so land for public launch facilities is scarce. However, the 
Bureau of Land Management has purchased land for a boat launch facility 
and has completed all of the appropriate studies and planning; they are 
simply lacking the funds to build the facility. The local community, 
including many residents of Washington State, tenaciously support the 
project and are willing to provide about $700,000 toward the project.
  In the same part of the great State of Idaho, mining has been and, 
hopefully, will continue to be a substantial part of the local 
economy--providng the minerals we all need. The University of Idaho and 
Washington State University want to work with the U.S. Geological 
Survey to develop new high-tech methods of modeling geology, to be 
tested in North Idaho, but eventually applied world-wide, to provide 
better exploration and modeling techniques to find groundwater, 
minerals, etc.
  In the Southern part of Idaho, we are very concerned about the 
proposed listing of the Sage Grouse as an endangered species. The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service has been petitioned to list the species, 
which would have a dramatic impact on the lives of the people of 
Southern Idaho, as well as future BLM and Forest Service operations. It 
becomes readily apparent when you visit Southern Idaho that the entire 
region is habitat for Sage Grouse.
  Local working groups have been formed across Southern Idaho to find 
local, collaborative projects to restore Sage Grouse habitat and the 
species which would make a listing under the Endangered Species Act 
unnecessary. To be successful, this effort appropriately requires some 
federal support.
  Finally, also in Southern Idaho, there is an urgent need to re-open 
the

[[Page 14679]]

BLM's air tanker resupply base at the Twin Falls airport. This base was 
closed in 1998, after an internal inspection indicated unsafe 
conditions. This is the only such base within 100 miles of most of the 
Idaho-Nevada border, which uniquely suits it to provide the fastest 
possible response and turnaround times in this area during the fire 
season. In this vast expanse of vulnerable landscape, in the dry 
season, a small accident rapidly could become a major fire disaster. 
We've seen that happen in other parts of the country and we should take 
steps here to prevent it. The community has worked diligently with the 
local BLM office to re-open the base as soon as possible. However, in 
the national office, this project has been slipped back from year to 
year and down the priority list. Everyone agrees this base must be 
replaced. Our concern is simply that it should be done now, rather than 
be subject to further postponement.
  I hope the chairman will work with me when this bill goes to 
conference to find funds for all of these important and fiscally 
responsible projects.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Idaho's interest in these 
projects. I am familiar with them and recognize their value.
  I would be happy to work with the Senator to make sure appropriate 
consideration is given to these projects in the Conference Committee.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman.


                         clean coal technology

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2001 
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills, I wish to take a 
moment to address the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology 
Demonstration program, one of the most successful public-private 
research ventures ever undertaken, and one of the more important 
projects funded in this legislation.
  Fundamentally, the goal of the Clean Coal program is simple: 
Encourage the private sector to design and demonstrate advanced 
technologies which will use coal, our most abundant fossil energy 
resource, more cleanly and efficiently. To achieve that goal, I 
initiated the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration program in 1984 with 
an initial appropriation of $750 million. In subsequent years, I was 
able to add to those funds for a total amount in excess of $2.0 
billion. I am pleased to recall that then-President Ronald Reagan 
joined with me in endorsing the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 
program.
  As established, the program calls for the cost of clean coal 
demonstration projects to be shared equally between the Federal 
government and the private sector. Forty clean coal projects have been 
selected through a series of competitive solicitations issued by the 
Department of Energy. And while Congress required industry to 
contribute 50 percent of the cost of selected projects, I am proud to 
say that, in toto, industry has in fact contributed more than 66 
percent of the total cost. Moreover, project sponsors are required to 
repay the Federal government's share of the project cost if and when 
the technologies are commercialized.
  Beyond the successes that have come from the Clean Coal program, 
though, a few simple facts will also underscore the real necessity of 
the program as well. Our nation has approximately 274 billion tons of 
recoverable coal reserves. At current rates of consumption those 
reserves amount to more than a 200-year supply. Furthermore, more than 
one half--54 percent to be exact--of the electricity generated in this 
country last year came from coal. Mr. President, those are staggering 
statistics which prove that American coal is, and will remain, an 
abundant and critically important energy source. But those statistics 
also suggest that our reliance on coal must be carried out in a manner 
which utilizes the cleanest and most efficient technologies possible. 
And that is what the Clean Coal program is intended to accomplish.
  In furtherance of that objective, the Committee on Appropriations, 
through its report accompanying this bill, has directed the Department 
of Energy to issue a report to Congress by March 1, 2001, depicting the 
nature and content of a potential new round of Clean Coal Technology 
projects. This information is vital if we in the Congress are to direct 
the Department to utilize funds already available in the Clean Coal 
program for the purpose of funding additional demonstration projects.
  Indeed, Mr. President, I have heard from a number of companies 
interested in coal and the development of technologies that will allow 
this nation to make the best use of this abundant energy resource. 
These companies, some of which are in my own state of West Virginia, 
have recommended that any new clean coal solicitation be focused 
principally upon technologies that will reduce the environmental 
impacts from existing, as well as new, coal-fired facilities. In 
addition, I believe that we ought to be encouraging newer technologies 
that are even more advanced than the clean coal technologies that have 
been demonstrated thus far. A new solicitation should therefore 
encourage technologies capable of reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), or mercury, as well as 
increasing the operating efficiency of coal-fired power plants thereby 
reducing--and through technologies, working to eliminate--carbon 
dioxide emissions.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to join my 
distinguished colleague from West Virginia in addressing the Clean Coal 
Technology program. I would also like to commend the Chairman of the 
Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and of course the Ranking 
Member, Senator Byrd for their work relating to the Clean Coal 
Technology Demonstration program.
  Mr. President, I share the optimism of the leaders of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee with respects to the innovations that could 
be made with further clean coal technology projects. I specifically 
want to draw attention to one area in which I think that there is great 
potential--lignite energy development. In my state of North Dakota, the 
lignite industry provides a low-cost, reliable energy source for more 
than 2 million people in the upper Midwest. This industry directly 
employs 3,000 people in North Dakota and has great potential to 
increase the efficiency of coal-fired power plants while reducing the 
emissions with the application of new coal technologies.
  Mr. President, because of the importance of lignite coal, I would 
urge the Department of Energy to specifically explore the development 
of low-rank coals, coals containing high-sodium, and mine-mouth 
applications and concepts in any new round of Clean Coal Technology 
projects. I also believe, and I would hope the Department would agree, 
too, that preference should be given to those states that have lignite 
research and development programs requiring public and private 
collaboration. This kind of work should be aspects of the study that 
the Committee report requires of the Department.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota and I agree that the lignite 
energy industry has the potential to develop more environmentally sound 
and economically efficient technologies. I certainly welcome efforts to 
ensure that the lignite energy industry is given due consideration by 
the Energy Department as it develops its criteria for further Clean 
Coal Technology projects.
  Mr. President, does the Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee agree 
with us about the need to consider the potential of lignite energy 
technologies in any new round of Clean Coal Technology projects?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I recognize that the Clean Coal Technology 
program is an important priority for Senator Byrd and Senator Dorgan 
and I urge the Department of Energy to consider the viability of 
concepts not fully developed on low-rank coals and coals containing 
high sodium as it works on the study we have requested.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his consideration, 
and wonder if he would answer a question or two to help clarify the 
Committee's directive regarding the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration 
program?

[[Page 14680]]


  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would be happy to answer the Senator's 
questions. I know he is a champion of coal and the Clean Coal 
Technology program, and I am also aware of his abiding interest in the 
environmentally sound use of coal as a source of power for this nation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would it be the Senator's thought that the 
Department should support technologies which control emissions from 
coal use or increase the operating efficiency of coal-based power 
plants?
  Mr. GORTON. In response, let me say, Mr. President, that those are 
certainly the types of technologies that the Department should address.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator also agree with me that 
further demonstrations projects should be at a size that would permit 
immediate scale up to commercial capacity? And also, in that instance 
where the technology is to be applied to an existing plant, that the 
technology should be widely applicable to a very significant number of 
existing coal-fired generating facilities?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, again, I agree with the Senator. Given 
pending environmental requirements applicable to these coal-fired 
units, it would be my hope that the Department of Energy would consider 
larger scale projects able to be commercialized immediately. Also, any 
program should be aimed at developing technologies that could be 
applied to the greatest number of existing units possible.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his 
courtesy in answering my inquiries.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to ask the Chairman a question about the 
language concerning the 1994 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan on page 18 
of the report accompanying this legislation. It is the Chairman's 
understanding that the language refers specifically to certain tasks 
which the Fish and Wildlife Service committed in the Recovery Plan to 
complete by 1999 and, to my knowledge, have not even begun?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. As the Chairman knows, I am deeply troubled that the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 
other federal agencies have moved very quickly to impose the land use 
controls recommended in the Recovery Plan, but have failed to undertake 
the basic tasks called for in that document to determine whether those 
land use controls are truly appropriate and are proving to be 
effective. I am speaking of three tasks: the desert tortoise monitoring 
that the Plan called ``crucial to determining if desert tortoise 
populations are stationary, declining, or increasing''; the desert 
tortoise population estimations that the Plan stated would be made 
every three to five years; and the Plan's reassessment that also was to 
be conducted every three to five years.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee fully expects the 
USFWS to fulfill its commitments in the Recovery Plan to carry out the 
desert tortoise monitoring, population estimation, and Recovery Plan 
reassessment. Additionally, the Committee expected the plan called for 
in the report language will focus solely on those three tasks.
  Mr. BENNETT. One last point. To ensure that appropriated funds are 
spent wisely, I want to voice my concern that any methodology to be 
employed in conducting the monitoring be designed to permit correlation 
of the new data with the data gathered between 1980 and 2000. This will 
ensure that population trends, and the efficacy of programs and 
mitigation undertaken since 1980, can be determined.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator makes an excellent point. The Committee 
agrees that the desert tortoise monitoring methodology should be 
designed as you suggest.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator.


              Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation 
Funds for Idaho?
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss 
this important issue.
  Mr. CRAPO. First, allow me to commend the Chairman for his leadership 
and hard work on this bill. He and the Subcommittee have had to make 
difficult decisions with scarce resources and have worked hard to do so 
in a fair manner. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts and diligence.
  Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. 
As the Chairman knows, an opportunity exists to use Land and Water 
Conservation Funds (LWCF) to acquire easements in the state to protect 
these valuable habitats and scenic values.
  While I am concerned regarding the level of funding appropriated, I 
appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of funding 
easements in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, near the Snake 
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, and on the Lower Salmon 
River. However, many other LWCF projects in the state were not funded. 
Protecting deer habitat in the Soda Springs Hills, acquiring inholdings 
to protect elk range and address historic mining activities in the 
Silver Spar Land Acquisition, securing easements along the Upper Snake 
River and South Fork of the Snake River, and acquiring private land, 
the Sulfur Creek Ranch, within the Frank Church River of No Return 
Wilderness area are all important projects. These projects are all 
locally-driven, with wide-spread support, and anxious willing-sellers.
  I recognize that the Subcommittee is operating under significant 
financial restraints and that, unfortunately, not all worthy projects 
can be funded. It is my hope that if additional LWCF money becomes 
available, the Chairman can revisit these important Idaho projects. I 
would ask the Chairman if he would work with us in conference to 
evaluate these requests, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference 
report.
  Mr. Gorton. I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in these projects. 
I am familiar with these projects and recognize the value in protecting 
these lands.
  I would be happy to work with the Senator to reevaluate these 
projects in the conference committee. If additional LWCF funding 
becomes available, we will consider what can be done to address these 
needs.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chairman.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Nation is blessed with many natural 
treasures that hold unique scientific or cultural value.
  That's why in 1906 the Congress passed and the President signed the 
Antiquities Act to give us a way to protect these unique lands.
  Since 1906, presidents of all parties have used the act to designate 
over 100 national monuments--including several which Congress later 
designated as National Parks including the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton 
and Olympic National Parks.
  Each year, more than 50 million visitors enjoy our country's national 
monuments. Today, there are other unique areas throughout our country 
that hold similar value. Unfortunately, some of these remarkable areas 
are threatened by growth, development, and harvesting.
  I believe we have a responsibility to protect these natural 
treasures. I believe we have a responsibility to be a good steward of 
these lands and to pass them on--untarnished--to future generations
  I'm proud that Washington state is home to the Hanford Reach--which 
is the last-free flowing stretch of the Columbia River. During World 
War II and the Cold War, the people of the Tri-Cities made sacrifices 
that helped our nation end World War II and win the Cold War. Because 
of the high security around the nuclear facility, for decades this part 
of the Columbia River and the surrounding land was protected from 
development. Unfortunately, its future was not certain.
  The Hanford Reach is a key salmon spawning ground and as many of my 
colleagues know we are working in the Pacific Northwest to help recover 
our once-abundant salmon stocks. I was pleased that the President used 
his authority--under the Antiquities Act--to

[[Page 14681]]

designate the Hanford Reach as a National Monument.
  Mr. President, it was the right thing to do.
  That designation will help us recover salmon stocks, will ensure 
families can continue to enjoy the Reach, and will share the history of 
the Tri-Cities with the American public. And of course, the designation 
will preserve a unique habitat for future generations.
  I hope that in the future, the Hanford Reach National Monument 
receives the attention and recognition that it deserves. The Olympic 
National Park began as a National Monument--one of the first--
designated by President Roosevelt in 1909. Many generations of 
Americans have enjoyed the natural splendor that the Olympics and the 
surrounding area offer. I hope that the Hanford Reach will also become 
a destination for Americans eager to learn more about our past.
  Unfortunately, the Nickles' amendment would deny the possibility of 
such protection to other deserving areas around the country. It is 
clear that supporters of this amendment are unhappy with the 
President's use of the Antiquities Act. But in the end, the President 
has legally exercised the authority vested in him by the Act.
  If this Congress is really unhappy with the Antiquities Act, it could 
amend the Act itself or override particular designations. But we all 
know that won't happen. The reason it won't happen is because the 
majority of Americans believe that the lands protected under the 
Antiquities Act are deserving of such protection.
  The Grand Canyon, Devils Tower, Mt. Olympus, Jackson Hole, Death 
Valley, Joshua Tree--have all been named as national monuments. Few 
would argue these areas are not worthy of such recognition and 
protection. The fact is many of these designations have been so popular 
that Congress later designated them as national parks, often expanding 
them at the same time. Again, Olympic National Park in my home state is 
an example of such Congressional action.
  In 1906, Congress had the wisdom to grant the President the power to 
protect important natural and historic areas of our country. The need 
for such power is not at an end. Threats of development and impacts 
from other activities will continue and in some cases will lead to the 
recognition that greater protection for certain federal lands is 
warranted. At that time, the President, who ever she or he may be, 
should have the ability to act as every President has since 1906. 
Indeed, since the Antiquities Act was passed 14 of the 17 Presidents 
have used its powers.
  If it is indeed the will of Congress to limit this historic power of 
the Presidency, then let us do so after a full and public legislative 
process. This amendment is simply a back-door attempt to accomplish 
what the sponsor and supporters know they cannot do through a stand 
alone bill.
  Despite some controversy, the President's designations have had the 
support of members of Congress and the public. In fact, I--along with 
many members of my state's delegation in the House--supported the 
President's recent designation of the Hanford Reach as a national 
monument. This designation was also supported by many people in the 
Tri-Cities and across the state.
  Before I close I remind my colleagues that a similar amendment was 
included in the House Interior bill as it was reported by the 
Committee. Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of Congressman Dicks 
and Congressman Boehlert, that amendment was removed from the House 
bill. However, before the amendment's removal, the House bill received 
a veto threat because of this provision. We can certainly expect a 
similar veto threat from the Administration if this amendment is 
adopted.
  For the first time in years, we have the opportunity to pass a free 
standing Interior Appropriations bill into law. This amendment would 
seriously compromise that possibility.
  We should stand up for the people and communities who are eager to 
share in the benefits of these national monuments.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bryan 
amendment, which would ensure protection of our nations forests. This 
amendment would cut $30 million from the National Forest System's 
forest products program and would redirect $15 million to the Wildland 
Fire Management's fire preparedness program. The amendment would return 
the remaining funds to the Treasury to reduce the national debt. There 
are many reasons why I support this amendment, but let me discuss just 
two.
  First, is the need to end corporate welfare. It is estimated that 
within the federal budget corporate welfare makes up anywhere from $86 
billion (CATO Institute) to $265 billion (Progressive Policy 
Institute). A recent report by the Green Scissors Coalition estimates 
that over a five year period the Federal government will spend $36 
billion on wasteful and environmentally harmful projects such as the 
forest products program.
  Second, simply, is that by passing this amendment, we enact good 
environmental policy. The continual construction of new roads required 
to access our nation's forests removes ground cover and creates a 
channel for water to run down, accelerates soil erosion, weakens 
hillsides and fouls steams, destroying the foundation of our 
recreational and commercial fisheries. Logging roads are a major source 
of non-point source water pollution. According to the National Forest 
Service, 922 communities receive their drinking water from streams 
within the national forests-streams that are polluted from contaminated 
run-off associated with construction.
  The protection of our roadless areas is important because they 
represent an important legacy for future generations. Areas without 
roads are becoming scarce in this country and in our national forests. 
Roadless areas provide significant benefits including: opportunities 
for dispersed recreation, clean, clear sources of public drinking 
water; large undisturbed landscapes that provide privacy and seclusion; 
bulwarks against the spread of invasive species; habitat for fish and 
game and other rare plant and animal species.
  While I would prefer to see this program eliminated completely, at 
the minimum timber companies should not be subsidized by the taxpayers. 
The timber industry, like any other business, should bear its own 
costs. At a time when we are asking all Americans to do more with less, 
we should have the courage to ask the special interests to at least pay 
their own way. I support the Bryan amendment, and ask my colleagues to 
join me by voting for this important initiative.
  While I have the floor, I will take a moment to comment on 
legislation that the Senate will soon consider. The Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act would guarantee full funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and afford permanent protection to our nation's 
threatened natural, cultural, and historical treasures.
  In 1964, Congress made the decision to reinvest revenue from the 
development of non-renewable resources into acquisition and permanent 
protection of key land, water, and open space. In the 30 years since 
its creation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been 
responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million acres of 
parkland-contributing to the creation of the Appalachian Trail, 
Everglades and Rocky Mountain National Parks. In New Jersey, it helped 
fund the acquisition of Sterling Forest, and the Cape May and Walkill 
National Wildlife Refuges.
  However, the LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way ``trust fund'' 
is generally understood by the public. Despite the fact that by law, 
the revenues are supposed to go to the LWCF, Congress must appropriate 
the money before it can be spent; if appropriations are not made, the 
revenues instead go to the General Treasury, to be spent on defense, or 
roads, or whatever Congress decides. The practical effect is that 
historically, only a small portion of the funds in the LWCF has 
actually been used for land preservation.
  At no time has full funding of the LWCF been more needed than today, 
as

[[Page 14682]]

the demands of development and suburbanization jeopardize land 
preservation efforts. The United States loses 50 acres an hour to 
development. In New Jersey, we know all too well the effects of 
suburban sprawl. Since 1961, New Jersey has lost half a million acres 
to sprawl. This is not surprising when you consider that New Jersey 
ranks 9th in terms of population. The reality is that sprawl is 
settling in over our open space.
  In a very exciting development, the House of Representatives recently 
passed LWCF legislation, and this bill now stands in the Senate. I am 
hopeful that the Senate will mark up its legislation this week, and I 
urge the Leadership to schedule floor time for this landmark initiative 
as soon as possible.
  Inscribed in one of the hallways of our nation's Capitol are the 
words of Theodore Roosevelt. He said: ``The nation behaves well if it 
treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the 
next generation increased, and not impaired in value.'' Let us act on 
this vision and pass this extraordinary initiative during the 106th 
Congress.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every year at this time it seems we're here 
on the Senate floor debating another attack on the Forest Service's 
Timber Management Program. Every year those who wish to eliminate 
logging in our National Forests come up with another angle which they 
claim helps protect the environment by eliminating ``wasteful'' 
spending on logging practices. Every year people throughout northern 
Minnesota and forested regions across the country see their jobs and 
their livelihoods threatened in the name of preservation or 
conservation. And every year, those of us who represent the good people 
of the timber and paper industry in our states have to fight, scratch, 
and claw our way to a narrow victory that saves those jobs and those 
families from economic ruin.
  I come from a state in which the forest and paper industry is vital 
to our economy. The reduction in the timber program on National Forests 
has had a dramatic impact over the past ten years on the number of jobs 
and the economic vitality of northern Minnesota. According to Minnesota 
Forest Industries (MFI), jobs provided by the timber program in 
Minnesota dropped from over 1,900 in 1987 to less than 1,100 last year, 
and they continue to decline.
  The reduction in timber harvests on federal lands has had an equally 
dramatic effect on unrealized economic impacts. MFI estimates that 
unrealized economic benefits include over $10 million from timber 
sales, $25 million in federal taxes, $2.5 million in payments to 
states, and $116 million in community economic impact in Minnesota 
alone.
  It's important to point out that the timber program in National 
Forests have a very positive impact on the amount of federal money that 
goes to rural counties and schools. Nationally, the program contribute 
$225 million to counties and schools each year through receipts from 
timber sales in national forests. In Minnesota, the timber program 
provided roughly $1.7 million to counties and schools in 1998 alone. If 
the timber program would have met its allowable sale quantity in 1998, 
that number would have risen to nearly $2.5 million.
  I'm fascinated by the claims of some of my colleagues that the timber 
program is a subsidy to wealthy timber and paper companies and the 
claims that the timber program loses money because we're giving timber 
away to these companies. If you truly believe that, I challenge you to 
visit forested regions and speak with the families who have lost their 
mills and the loggers who have lost their jobs. Talk to the counties 
and the private landowners who cannot access to their own property 
because the Forest Service doesn't have enough money to do the 
environmental reviews. Or talk directly to the Forest Service personnel 
and let them tell you how lengthy and costly environmental reviews and 
the overwhelming number of court challenges to those reviews are making 
the timber program so costly.
  Then go speak with state or county land managers and ask them why 
their timber programs are so successful. Ask them why their lands are 
so much more healthy than the federal lands and why they're able to 
make money with their timber programs. In Minnesota, St. Louis County 
only has to spend 26 cents in order to generate one dollars of revenue 
in their timber program and the State of Minnesota spend 75 cents to 
generate one dollar of revenue. The Superior National Forest, on the 
other hand, spend one dollar and three cents to get the same results.
  I cannot see how my colleagues can stand here on the Senate floor and 
tell me that the forest and paper industry in our country, and its 
employees, are the bad guys. The forest and paper industry in America 
employs over 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten 
manufacturing employers in 46 states. These are good, traditional jobs 
that help a family make a living, allow children to pursue higher 
education, help keep rural families in rural areas, and provide a 
legitimate a base from which rural counties can fund basic services. 
These are jobs that we in Congress should be working diligently not 
only to protect, but to grow.
  Unfortunately, many Members of Congress who advocate these ideas have 
never taken the time to understand the positive economic and 
environmental benefits of science-based timber harvests. They've never 
sat down with a county commissioner who doesn't know where he is going 
to get the money for some of the most basic services the county 
provides to its citizens. They've never considered that for every 1 
million board feet in timber harvest reductions in Minnesota, 10 people 
lose their jobs and over $570,000 in economic activity is lost. And 
they've never taken the time to go into a health forest where prudent 
logging practices have been essential to ensuring the vitality and 
diversity of species.
  If Members of this body want to make the timber program profitable 
across the country, then we should have an honest debate about what 
works and does not work in the program. We should discuss frankly the 
ridiculous number of hoops public land managers have to jump through in 
order to process a timber sale. I think we need to discuss the fact 
that under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act the 
federal government must provide access across federal lands for state, 
county, and private landowners to access their land. Yet in Minnesota, 
those landowners either have to wait a number of years or pay for the 
environmental reviews themselves because the Forest Service claims it 
doesn't have enough money. We should also discuss openly the dramatic 
impact court challenges are having on the ability of the Forest Service 
to do its job and to carry out the timber program in a cost-effective 
manner. On top of that, it's clear that under this Administration the 
Forest Service doesn't want a timber program that shows a profit and 
they've done an effective job of using the powers of the Executive 
Branch to vilify both the timber program and the men and women of my 
state who rely upon that program in order to meet their most basic 
needs.
  Virtually everyone in this body, including this Senator, is committed 
to the protection of our environment and to the conservation of our 
wildlife species and wildlife habitat. I believe we can expand upon our 
commitment to wildlife and provide additional resources for habitat 
protection. But I do not believe we must do so on the backs of timber 
and paper workers throughout the nation. I am willing to work with 
anybody in this chamber towards those conservation efforts, but let's 
not do it by pitting timber and paper workers against conservationists.
  We cannot simply stand here and claim that the Bryan amendment is an 
easy way to throw some money towards planning for the threat of forest 
fires. Rather, this amendment is going to take jobs from my 
constituents and hurt the economy of the northern part of my state. The 
Bryan amendment is just one more step down the road toward eliminating 
logging on federal land. This amendment is going to reduce the ability 
of a number of rural counties in my state to make ends

[[Page 14683]]

meet and to provide necessary services to residents. These are just a 
few of the realities of the Bryan amendment and just a few of the 
reasons why I cannot and will not support its passage.


              archie carr national wildlife refuge funding

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my colleagues, 
Senators Gorton and Byrd for their support in obtaining $2 million in 
the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1991. It is 
900 acres in Brevard County Florida which makes up the twenty mile 
section of coastline from Melbourne Beach to Wabasso Beach in Florida. 
It is the most important nesting area for loggerhead sea turtles in the 
western hemisphere and the second most important nesting beach in the 
world.
  Mr. MACK. I would like to join my colleague in thanking Senators 
Gorton and Byrd and the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their 
support for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Twenty percent of 
all loggerhead sea turtle and 35% of all green sea turtle nests in the 
United States occur in this twenty mile zone. Nesting densities of 
1,000 nests per mile have been recorded. Approximately half of this 
area is available for acquisition. The funds in this legislation will 
be critical in our ability to move forward on these acquisitions.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Despite the importance of this refuge to the loggerhead 
sea turtle, there is no refuge station at Archie Carr. The result is 
both a lack of educational opportunities for visitors and a lack of 
security at the refuge. I join my colleague, Senator Mack, in proposing 
that $200,000 of the funds provided by the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior 
Appropriations bill for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge be 
available for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose 
of site evaluation for a visitor center/research and education center.
  Mr. GORTON. Thank you, Senators Mack and Graham. I share your desire 
to support the need of our National Wildlife Refuges, in particular the 
needs of Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, and will work with 
Senators Mack and Graham to see if funds can be identified to support 
site evaluation for a visitor center/research and education center.
  Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Senator Gorton. I, too, share the goal of 
ensuring that our National Wildlife Refuge System receives the funds it 
requires to preserve the critical habitat it was designed to protect. I 
concur with your position on the proposal made by Senators Graham and 
Mack.


        north carolina's stream gauges and monitoring equipment

  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank you for including my amendment to provide 
$1,800,000 in emergency funds for the United States Geological Survey 
to repair and replace stream monitoring equipment damaged by natural 
disasters. As you know, your Committee recommended a significant 
increase in the USGS's Real Time Hazards Initiative, including 
$3,100,000 for new or upgraded stream gauging stations.
  1999 was a devastating year for North Carolina. Hurricanes Floyd, 
Dennis and Irene did extensive damage across eastern North Carolina. 
And early indications are that this hurricane season will be just as 
active for North Carolina as last year. North Carolina's stream gauges 
and monitoring equipment are in desperate need of upgrade and 
enhancement. I respectfully request that the Committee recommend that 
the United States Geological Survey give special consideration to North 
Carolina's needs and address the need for upgrades and enhancements 
through this appropriation.
  Mr. GORTON. I understand that the USGS is willing to address North 
Carolina's specific needs for stream gauges and monitoring equipment 
through the Real Time Hazards Initiative. The Committee recognizes the 
unique danger in North Carolina and, therefore, strongly encourages the 
USGS to ensure that North Carolina's stream gauges and monitoring 
devices are enhanced or upgraded to the degree possible within 
appropriations provided for these types of activities.


                   electro-catalytic oxidation (eco)

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues, Senator 
Gorton, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee; and 
Senator Byrd, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, about a new and 
innovative technology. Mr. Chairman, are you aware of an emerging 
technology known as electro-catalytic oxidation (ECO), which has the 
potential to reduce emissions, as well as unusable byproducts at coal-
fired power plants?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would inform the Senator from Ohio that 
I have been made aware of ECO.
  Mr. DeWINE. I ask if he concurs that the Secretary of Energy should 
participate in a full-scale demonstration of this technology that is 
planned for the near future.
  Mr. GORTON. I would certainly encourage the Department to take a 
close look at this technology within the context of its coal research 
programs, and consider carefully any related research or demonstration 
proposal that may be submitted.
  Mr. DeWINE. As the senior Senator from West Virginia is aware, the 
early tests of this technology show a significant reduction of nitrogen 
oxide (Nox), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury, and fine particulate 
matter. Would the Senator agree that a cost-effective reduction of 
these emissions is in the best interest of coal-fired power consumers 
as well as the coal industry?
  Mr. BYRD. I would agree with the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia and would note that the Senator from New Hampshire, the state 
were ECO was developed, is optimistic about the potential of the 
technology. Would the Senator agree?
  Mr. SMITH (of New Hampshire). I would agree with my colleague from 
Ohio and add that I applaud the innovative efforts that have led to the 
development of this emerging emissions control technology. As many of 
you know, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is 
currently working to develop a bill that will address the significant 
problem of the hodge-podge of overlapping Clean Air Act regulation on 
utilities. Our goal is to draft a comprehensive, multi-pollutant bill 
to provide a more sensible emission control regime on utilities while 
at the same time achieving greater reductions of pollutants than is 
currently possible under the Clean Air Act. New technologies, much as 
electro-catalytic oxidation will be critically important to our ability 
to successfully revise our approach to utility emission control. I 
would support any efforts to expedite the development of this 
technology.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee for his support of this important 
technology, and I would welcome the opportunity to more closely examine 
his proposals related to Clean Air reauthorization, and comment on them 
at a future time. I also thank the Chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee and the senior Senator from West Virginia and would 
encourage them to consider the benefits of ECO to consumers of coal-
fired power as well as coal producing states when this bill moves to 
conference with the other body.


           FY 2001 Interior Appropriations for Maine Projects

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Maine and the nation have an opportunity to 
accomplish an enormously meaningful level of forest protection in 
Maine's 10 million acre Northern Forest if significant funding for 
Forest Service accounts is allocated for Maine projects in fiscal year 
2001. In the last two years, an astounding 20 percent of Maine's total 
forestland acreage has changed ownership, an occurrence that represents 
a significant shift in the pattern of stable long-term ownership and 
use that has characterized the Maine woods for at least the last 
hundred years.
  Ms. COLLINS. The Senior Senator for Maine is correct, Mr. Chairman. 
This tremendous turnover calls into question whether the traditional 
use of these lands for forestry and for outdoor recreational activities 
will continue. We are fortunate that the present owners of these 
valuable lands are offering

[[Page 14684]]

an opportunity to secure their lasting protection and productivity. I, 
along with Senator Snowe, support these efforts through funding from 
the Forest Legacy Program and the Forest Service's land acquisition 
program and hope we can work together during this appropriations 
process to take advantage of the opportunity afforded us at this time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your strong support 
for Forest Legacy funding in FY 2000 in approving $3 million Title 6 
funding for Maine for Phase I of the 656,000 acre West Branch project. 
This funding, along with the $2 million already allocated from the 
state grant portion of LWCF, will complement the $4 million being 
secured through non-federal sources for the conservation and protection 
of 70,000 acres of undeveloped forestland, including more than 100 
miles of undeveloped shoreline along Moosehead Lake, Seboomook Lake, 
and several smaller lakes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Phase II of the West Branch project consists of the 
remaining acreage of approximately 580,000 acres of what is one of the 
largest contiguous blocks of forest under single management in the 
eastern United States and has sustained a flow of timber products for 
more than 100 years.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senators' interest in this worthy 
project and I would be happy to work with the Senators to ensure 
appropriate consideration is given to these projects in Conference.
  Ms. SNOWE. The second Forest Legacy project, Mr. Chairman, known as 
Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain, is a two-phase project totaling 
approximately 33,400 acres and will protect some of Maine's most scenic 
areas--including Tumbledown Mountain, Jackson Mountain, Blueberry 
Mountain and trailheads leading to these peaks.
  Ms. COLLINS. An amount of $1.2 million in Forest Legacy funding will 
allow the acquisition in fee of 3,600 acres immediately adjacent to 
Maine's Mt. Blue State Park, and will bring needed protections to 
Maine's scenic and popular Western Mountain region. I want to express 
my strong support for the project.
  Mr. GORTON. Once again, I appreciate the Senators' interest in this 
worthy project and I would be pleased to work with the Senators to see 
that this project is considered fully in Conference.
  Ms. SNOWE. I also want to thank you for your appropriations support 
for funds for the Pingree Forest, which is an excellent example of 
private sector cooperation and conservation, while at the same time 
preserving the working forests of our State. The Pingree Family of 
Maine has been exemplary in the way it has managed its lands for seven 
generations--160 years. As you are aware, the Pingree Family has 
entered into the Pingree Forest Partnership with the New England 
Forestry Foundation, which has committed to raise $30 million for a 
conservation easement on 754,673 acres of land in Northern and Western 
Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. The New England Forestry Foundation is within $11.5 
million of its goal, which, under the terms of the partnership 
agreement with the Pingree family, must be met by December 31 of this 
year. I would note that the Pingree Family has agreed to sell this 
easement on their land at only $37.10 an acre.
  Mr. GORTON. I am very much in support of what the parties are trying 
to preserve--a way of life through forestry in Maine and the 
conservation of the magnificent Northeast forests of this nation--and I 
will carry that support into conference. Funding of this project is 
certainly a wise use of federal funds for the conservation of 
outstanding undeveloped lands, and also keeping the Maine woods in 
sustainable forestry.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank you for your close scrutiny of the merits of this 
project and your support for what is currently the largest single land 
conservation project in the world. I would like to point out that, for 
any appropriation to work under the agreement, I urge you to allocate 
the funds through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to the New 
England Forestry Foundation, which will hold the easement for the 
Pingree land.
  Ms. COLLINS. I would like to add that, in the past, all of NFWF's 
federal grants have been appropriated through a designation to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund, and NFWF 
has received funds from the Forest Service for grants over the past ten 
years. NFWF's excellent track record gives me confidence that it is the 
right steward of this important project.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree that this clarification is necessary and agree 
that the funds should be allocated through NFWF.
  Ms. SNOWE. Once again, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Washington State and praise his continuing efforts for the conservation 
of our nation's private lands, especially those of great importance to 
the people of Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I also thank you for your support, Mr. Chairman, for 
supporting these appropriations that will enable Pingree land to 
continue to supply area mills and support the local economy while 
allowing the public continued recreational access.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief 
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, concerning future demonstration projects 
under the Clean Coal Technology program. Mr. President, clarifying the 
intent of the program will be helpful in my efforts to ensure that a 
very worthwhile initiative in Pennsylvania received full consideration 
by the Department of Energy.
  The lack of a coherent and consistent energy policy has contributed 
to the high fuel prices that have hit the working families in 
Pennsylvania and across the nation very hard. It is the lack of a 
national energy policy that has led to our nation's reliance on foreign 
oil. Today, we import 56 percent of our fuel. This is the highest level 
in the history of our country. For a historical perspective, we only 
imported 36 percent of our oil during the energy crisis of the 1970s.
  Mr. President, we must reduce our reliance on imported oil. We must 
conserve energy resources, improve energy efficiencies, and increase 
domestic energy supplies. We also need to aggressively expand our 
research and development efforts to encourage the use of domestic 
renewable energy sources.
  The Pennsylvania initiative that I referred to would do just that by 
developing a facility that would convert Anthracite culm to a clean 
diesel fuel. The project would produce 1.4 million barrels a year of 
zero-sulfur, high-energy diesel fuel, at the same time reclaiming land 
now rendered unusable and environmentally damaging. Additionally, it 
would create 1,000 construction and 150 permanent jobs.
  Would the Senator agree that the establishment of such a facility, 
whose principal focus is to develop domestic renewable energy sources 
by transforming coal and coal waste into high quality diesel fuel, is 
the type of activity that the Clean Coal Technology program should 
encourage?
  Mr. GORTON. I agree with my friend that the Clean Coal Technology 
program is meant to encourage projects that develop environmentally-
friendly technologies, such as coal conversion. I believe that the 
Department of Energy should use its limited funding resources to expand 
its efforts to encourage the development of domestic renewable energy 
sources.
  Mr. SANTORUM. As this bill moves forward into conference, is it the 
Senator's intention to seek adequate funding for the Clean Coal 
Technology program so that the Department of Energy can begin a new 
round of demonstration projects, including a project such as the 
Pennsylvania initiative I have described here today?
  Mr. GORTON. As my colleague is aware, the Senate report accompanying 
the FY 2001 Interior bill directs the Department to report on options 
for a new solicitation in the Clean Coal program. In the context of 
preparing this report, and in conducting any future solicitation, I 
would expect the Department to give full consideration to such 
worthwhile projects

[[Page 14685]]

as the one described by my friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, with 1 minute to spare, that concludes the 
introduction of all amendments pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement of last week.
  I repeat, if Members wish to speak to these amendments, they may do 
so after the conclusion of all of the votes on H.R. 4810, which will 
begin almost immediately. These amendments, to the extent that they 
require rollcall votes, will be voted on tomorrow, with the exception 
of the Bingaman amendment. It has 15 minutes for debate tomorrow.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I think we agree that we have 
heard adequate explanation previous times about these amendments. The 
Senator is not soliciting more comments, is he?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nevada states my position perfectly.

                          ____________________