[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20873-20890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 4578, Conference Report for FY 2001, 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

                             Bill Language

       Additional $1,762,000 for assessment of the mineral 
     potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 
     of Public Law 96-487.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 provided to local governments in 
     southern California for planning associated with the Natural 
     Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program.
       Earmark of $1,607,000 for security enhancements in 
     Washington, D.C.
       Earmark of $1,595,000 for the acquisition of interests in 
     Ferry Farm, George Washington's Boyhood Home and for 
     management of the home.
       An additional $5,000,000 for Save America's Treasures for 
     various locale-specific projects.
       Earmark of $650,000 for Lake Champlain National Historic 
     Landmarks.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Kendall County Courthouse.
       Earmark of $365,000 for the U.S. Grant Boyhood Home 
     National Historic Landmark which should be derived from the 
     Historic Preservation Fund.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 of the total of the grants made 
     available to the State of Maryland under Title IV of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 if the 
     amount is set aside in an acid mine drainage abatement and 
     treatment fund established under a State law.
       Earmark of $300,000 shall be for a grant to Alaska Pacific 
     University for the development of an ANILCA training 
     curriculum.
       Provision stating that none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the 
     Kankakee River basin that is inconsistent with the United 
     States Army Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding 
     and siltation in that area.
       Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall designate 
     Anchorage, Alaska, as a port of entry for the purpose of 
     section 9(f)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to Harvey 
     R. Redmond of Girdwood, Alaska, at no cost, all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to United States 
     Survey No. 12192, Alaska, consisting of 49.96 acres located 
     in the vicinity of T. 9N., R., 3E., Seward Meridian, Alaska.
       Provision which requires a land exchange regarding the 
     Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish refuge.
       Provision which authorizes a land exchange in Washington 
     between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Othello Housing 
     Authority.
       Provision which authorizes the establishment of the First 
     Ladies National Historic Site in Canton, Ohio.
       Provision which authorizes the Palace of Governors in New 
     Mexico.
       Provision which authorizes the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     Heritage Preservation Commission.
       Provision which redesignates the Cuyahoga Valley National 
     Recreation Area as a National Park.
       Provision which authorizes the Wheeling National Heritage 
     Area in West Virginia.
       Earmark of $500,000 to be available for law enforcement 
     purposes on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests.
       Earmark of $990,000 for the purpose of implementing the 
     Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which shall be available to 
     the Secretary for the management of the Valles Caldera 
     National Preserve, New Mexico.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 to be allocated to the Alaska Region, 
     in addition to its normal allocation for the purposes of 
     preparing additional timber for sale, to establish a 3-year 
     timber supply and such funds may be transferred to other 
     appropriations accounts as necessary to maximize 
     accomplishment.
       Earmark of $700,000 shall be provided to the State of 
     Alaska for monitoring activities at Forest Service log 
     transfer facilities, in the form of an advance, direct lump 
     sum payment.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 is appropriated and shall be 
     deposited into the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund 
     without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation. The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall distribute these funds to the 
     City of Craig in fiscal year 2001.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the National 
     Forest System' and `Capital Improvement and Maintenance' 
     accounts and planned to be allocated to activities under the 
     `Jobs in the Woods' program for projects on National Forest 
     land in the State of Washington may be granted directly to 
     the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for 
     accomplishment of planned projects.
       Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest 
     Service shall be available for payments to counties within 
     the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
       Language stating that the Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized to enter into grants, contracts, and cooperative 
     agreements as appropriate with the Pinchot Institute for 
     Conservation, as well as with public and other private 
     agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals, to 
     provide for the development, administration, maintenance, or 
     restoration of land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, 
     at the Grey Towers National Historic Landmark.
       Language stating that funds appropriated to the Forest 
     Service shall be available, as determined by the Secretary, 
     for payments to Del Norte County, California.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 to be designated by the Indian Health 
     Service as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health 
     Corporation (YKHC) to start a priority project for the 
     acquisition of land, planning, design and construction of 79 
     staff quarters at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a negotiated 
     project agreement between the YKHC and the Indian Health 
     Service.
       Provision stating that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, for fiscal year 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture 
     and the Interior are authorized to limit competition for 
     watershed restoration project contracts as part of the `Jobs 
     in the Woods' component of the President's Forest Plan for 
     the Pacific Northwest or the Jobs in the Woods Program 
     established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals 
     and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the 
     States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska 
     that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on 
     Federal lands.
       Provision which continues a provision regulating the export 
     of Western Red Cedar from National forest System Lands in 
     Alaska.
       Provision which continues to limit mining and prospecting 
     on the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri.
       Provision limiting competition for fire and fuel treatment 
     and watershed restoration contracts in California.
       Provision that amends the Columbia River Gorge National 
     Scenic Area Act to expedite the acquisition of critical lands 
     within the NSA dealing with land appraisal assumptions 
     utilized by the Forest Service to acquire land within the 
     Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
       Provision that adds the ``Boise Laboratory Replacement Act 
     of 2000'' that permits the sale of the Forest Service Boise, 
     ID, laboratory site, occupied by the Rocky Mountain Research 
     Station, and the use of the proceeds to purchase interests in 
     a multi-agency facility at the University of Idaho.

                       Conference Report Language

     Bureau of Land Management
       Earmark of $500,000 for Montana State University weed 
     program.
       Earmark of $750,000 for Idaho weed control.
       Earmark of $900,000 for Yukon River salmon.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Missouri River activities 
     associated with the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.
       Earmark of $500,000 for the Missouri River undaunted 
     stewardship program.
       Earmark of $700,000 for the development of a mining claim 
     information system in Alaska.
       Earmark of $500,000 for a coalbed methane EIS in Montana.
       Earmark of $650,000 for the Montana cadastral project.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Utah geographic reference 
     project.
       Earmark of $2,400,000 for Alaska conveyance.
       Earmark of $500,000 to prepare an EIS for future coal bed 
     methane and conventional oil and gas development in the 
     Montana portion of the Power River Basin.
       Earmark of $500,000 for the Undaunted Stewardship program, 
     which will allow for local input and participation in grants 
     to protect historic sites along the Lewis and Clark Trail. 
     This program is to be cooperatively administered by the 
     Bureau and Montana State University.

[[Page 20874]]

       Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the Waste 
     Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) at New 
     Mexico State University in addressing the problem of 
     abandoned mine sites in the western United States.
       Earmark of $482,000 for an Alaska rural fire suppression 
     program (Wildland fire management).
       Earmark of $482,000 for a rural Alaska fire suppression 
     program. (Wildland fire suppression).
       Earmark of $8,800,000 is to be made available to the 
     Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) of Northern Arizona 
     University, through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau 
     of Land Management, to support new and existing ecologically-
     based forest restoration activities in ponderosa pine 
     forests.
       Earmark of $3,760,000 for construction at the Coldfoot 
     Visitor Center.
       Earmark of $400,000 for construction at the Fort Benton 
     Visitor Center.
       Earmark of $200,000 for construction at the California 
     Train Interpretive Center.
       Earmark of $500,000 for construction at the Blackwell 
     Island Facility.
       Language which encourages the Bureau to work with the town 
     of Escalante and Garfield County, UT to ensure that the 
     construction of the science center is consistent with the 
     Escalante Center master plan.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 for land acquisition in El Dorado 
     County, CA.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition at Organ 
     Mountains, New Mexico.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for land acquisition for Upper Crab 
     Creek, Washington.
     Fish and Wildlife Service
       Earmark of $2,000 for Everglades for resource management.
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for cold water fish in Montana and 
     Idaho.
       Earmark of $270,000 for the California/Nevada desert 
     resource initiative.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Central Valley and Southern 
     California habitat conservation planning.
       Earmark of $500,000 for bighorn sheep conservation in 
     Nevada.
       Increases in the recovery program include $5,000,000 for 
     matching grants for Pacific salmon conservation and 
     restoration in Washington.
       Earmark of $288,000 for wolf recovery in Idaho.
       Earmark of $100,000 for wolf monitoring by the Nez Perce 
     tribe.
       Earmark of $600,000 for eider research at the Alaska 
     SeaLife Center.
       Earmark of $600,000 for Lahontan cutthroat trout 
     restoration.
       Earmark of $500,000 for the black capped vireo in Texas.
       Increase of $1,400,000 for Washington salmon enhancement.
       Increase of $4,000 for bull trout recovery in Washington.
       Increase of $500,000 for private lands conservation efforts 
     in Hawaii.
       Increase of $50,000 for rehabilitation of the White River 
     in Indiana in response to a recent fish kill.
       Increase of $252,000 in project planning for the Middle Rio 
     Grande Bosque program.
       Increase of $350,000 for Long Live the Kings and Hood Canal 
     Salmon Enhancement Group.
       Increase of $575,000 to reduce sea bird by-catch in Alaska.
       Increase of $360,000 for staffing and operations associated 
     with the new port of entry designation in Anchorage, Alaska.
       Increase of $5,000,000 for the Washington Hatchery 
     Improvement Project.
       Increase of $184,000 for marking of hatchery salmon in 
     Washington.
       Earmark of $11,051,000 for the Alaska subsistence program.
       Earmark of $750,000 for the Klamath River flow study.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Trinity River restoration.
       Earmark of $200,000 for Yukon River fisheries management 
     studies.
       Earmark of $100,000 for Yukon River Salmon Treaty education 
     efforts.
       Increase of $2,000,000 for Pingree Forest non-development 
     easements in Maine to be handled through the National Fish 
     and Wildlife Foundation.
       The increase provided in consultation for cold water fish 
     in Montana and Idaho are for preparation and implementation 
     of plans, programs, or agreements identified by the States of 
     Idaho and Montana that will address habitat for freshwater 
     aquatic species on non-Federal lands.
       Earmark of $800,000 in new joint ventures funding for the 
     Atlantic Coast.
       Earmark of $750,000 in new joint ventures funding for Lower 
     Mississippi.
       Earmark of $650,000 in new joint ventures funding for Upper 
     Mississippi.
       Earmark of $1,400,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Prairie Pothole.
       Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Gulf 
     Coast.
       Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for Playa 
     Lakes.
       Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Rainwater Basin.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Intermountain West.
       Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Central Valley.
       Earmark of $700,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Pacific Coast.
       Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for San 
     Francisco Bay.
       Earmark of $400,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Sonoran.
       Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for 
     Arctic Goose.
       Earmark of $370,000 in new joint ventures funding for Black 
     Duck.
       Earmark of $550,000 in new joint ventures funding for Sea 
     Duck.
       Earmark of $593,000 for Alaska Maritime NWR, AK 
     (Headquarters/Visitor Center).
       Earmark of $500,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Water 
     management facilities).
       Earmark of $3,600,000 for Bear River NWR, UT (Education 
     Center).
       Earmark of $350,000 for Canaan Valley NWR, WV (Heavy 
     equipment replacement).
       Earmark of $500,000 for Clarks River NWR, KY (Garage and 
     visitor access).
       Earmark of $250,000 for Great Dismal Swamp NWR, VA 
     (Planning and public use).
       Earmark of $800,000 for John Heinz NWR, PA (Administrative 
     wing).
       Earmark of $700,000 for Kealia Pond NWR, HI (Water control 
     structures).
       Earmark of $180,000 for Kodiak NWR, AK (Visitor Center/
     planning).
       Earmark of $130,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (ADA 
     accessibility).
       Earmark of $600,000 for Mason Neck NWR, VA (Non-motorized 
     trail).
       Additional $5,000,000 for National Conservation Training 
     Center, WV (Fourth Dormitory).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Noxubee NWR, MS (Visitor Center).
       Earmark of $300,000 for Pittsford NFH, VT (Planning and 
     design/hatchery rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $115,000 for Seatuck & Sayville NWRs, NY 
     (Visitor facilities).
       Earmark of $1,512,000 for Silvio O. Conte NWR, VT 
     (Education Center).
       Earmark of $1,100,000 for White River NWR, AR (Visitor 
     Center construction).
       Earmark of $350,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV 
     (Holding and propagation).
       Earmark of $20,000 for White Sulphur Springs NFH, WV 
     (Office renovations).
       Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition at Back Bay NWR 
     (VA).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Big Muddy 
     NWR (MO).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Bon Secour 
     NWR (AL).
       Earmark of $1,750,000 for land acquisition for Centennial 
     Valley NWR (MT).
       Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Clarks River 
     NWR (KY).
       Earmark of $2,100,000 for land acquisition for Dakota 
     Tallgrass Prairie Project (SD).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Edwin B. 
     Forsythe NWR (NJ).
       Earmark of $1,150,000 for land acquisition for Grand Bay 
     NWR (AL).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Lake Umbagog 
     NWR (NH).
       Earmark of $500,000 for land acquisition for Minnesota 
     Valley NWR (MN).
       Earmark of $600,000 for land acquisition for Neal Smith NWR 
     (IA).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Northern 
     Tallgrass NWR (MN).
       Earmark of $800,000 for land acquisition for Patoka River 
     NRW (IN).
       Earmark of $1,300,000 for land acquisition for Prime Hook 
     NWR (DE).
       Earmark of $750,000 for land acquisition for Silvo O. Conte 
     NWR (CT/MA/NH/VT).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for land acquisition for Stewart B. 
     McKinney NWR (CT).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Waccamaw NWR 
     (SC).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for land acquisition for Walkill 
     River (NJ).
     National Park Service
       Earmark of $975,000 for the 9 National Trails.
       Increase of $2,300,000 for Harpers Ferry Design Center.
       Earmark of $350,000 to repair the lighthouse at Fire Island 
     NS.
       Earmark of $75,000 to repair the Ocean Beach Pavilion at 
     Fire Island, NS.
       Earmark of $309,000 for repairs of the Bachlott House.
       Earmark of $100,000 for the Alberty House which are both 
     located at Cumberland Island NS.
       Earmark of $500,000 for maintenance projects at the Ozark 
     National Scenic Riverways Park.
       Earmark of $200,000 for a wilderness study at Apostle 
     Islands NL, WI.
       Language that directs the National Park Service make 
     sufficient funds available to assure that signs marking the 
     Lewis and Clark route in the State of North Dakota are 
     adequate to meet National Park Service standards.
       Language that directs that, within the amounts provided for 
     operation of the National Park System, the Service shall 
     provide the necessary funds, not to exceed $350,000, for the 
     Federal share of the cooperative effort to provide emergency 
     medical services in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
       Language stating that consideration should be given to 
     groups involved in hiking and biking trails in southeastern 
     Michigan and the Service is encouraged to work cooperatively 
     with groups in this area.
       Increase of $100,000 for Gettysburg NMP technical 
     assistance.

[[Page 20875]]

       Increase of $250,000 for the National Center for 
     Preservation Technology.
       Language that directs that implementation funds for the 
     Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area are contingent 
     upon National Park Service approval of the management and 
     interpretive plans that are currently being developed.
       Earmark of $742,000 for Alaska Native Cultural Center.
       Earmark of $100,000 for Aleutian World War II National 
     Historic Area.
       Earmark of $2,300,000 for Chesapeake Bay Gateways.
       Earmark of $300,000 for Dayton Aviation Heritage 
     Commission.
       Earmark of $2,250,000 for Four Corners Interpretive Center.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Lamprey River.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Mandan On-a-Slant Village.
       Earmark of $500,000 for National First Ladies Library.
       Additional $40,000 for Roosevelt Campobello International 
     Park Commission.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Route 66 National Historic Highway.
       Earmark of $495,000 for Sewall-Belmont House.
       Earmark of $400,000 for Vancouver National Historic 
     Reserve.
       Earmark of $594,000 for Wheeling National Heritage Area.
       Earmark of $100,000 for Women's Progress Commission.
       An additional $7,276,000 for various locale-specific 
     Historic Preservation projects.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Antietam NB, MD (stabilize/restore 
     battlefield structures).
       Earmark of $1,360,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (erosion 
     control).
       Additional $600,000 for Apostle Islands NL, WI (rehab Outer 
     Island lighthouse).
       Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL (Seminole Rest).
       Earmark of $300,000 for Canaveral NS, FL.
       Earmark of $4,000,000 for Corinth NB, MS (construct visitor 
     center).
       Earmark of $779,000 for Cumberland Island NS, GA (St. 
     Mary's visitor center).
       Additional $1,000,000 for Cuyahoga NRA, OH (stabilize 
     riverbank).
       Earmark of $1,300,000 for Dayton Aviation NHP, OH (east 
     exhibits).
       Earmark of $114,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA, PA/NJ 
     (Depew site).
       Earmark of $350,000 for Down East Heritage Center, ME.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Dry Tortugas NP, FL (stabilize and 
     restore fort).
       Earmark of $129,000 for Edison NHS, NJ (preserve historic 
     buildings and museum collections).
       Earmark of $1,175,000 for Edison NHS, NJ.
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for Ft. Stanwix NM, NY (completes 
     rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $386,000 for Ft. Washington Park, MD (repair 
     masonry wall).
       Earmark of $300,000 for Gateway NRA, NY/NJ (preservation of 
     artifacts at Sandy Hook unit).
       Earmark of $100,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway, 
     MD/VA (Belle Haven).
       Earmark of $300,000 for George Washington Memorial Parkway, 
     MD/VA (Mt. Vernon trail).
       Earmark of $511,000 for Grand Portage NM, MN (heritage 
     center).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for Hispanic Cultural Center, NM 
     (construct cultural center).
       Earmark of $3,000,000 for Hot Springs NP, AR 
     (rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $2,500,000 for John H. Chafee Blackstone River 
     Valley NHC, RI/MA.
       Earmark of $795,000 Kenai Fjords NP, AK (completes 
     interagency visitor center design).
       Earmark of $10,000,000 for Lincoln Library, IL.
       Earmark of $290,000 for Lincoln Home NHS, IL (restore 
     historic structures).
       Earmark of $487,000 for Longfellow NHS, MA (carriage barn).
       Additional $945,000 for Manzanar NHS, CA (establish 
     interpretive center and headquarters).
       Earmark of $2,543,000 for Missouri Recreation River 
     Research & Education Center, NE (Ponca State Park).
       Earmark of $500,000 for Morristown NHP, NJ.
       Earmark of $500,000 for Morris Thompson Visitor and 
     Cultural Center, AK (planning).
       Earmark of $150,000 for Mt. Rainier NP, WA (exhibit 
     planning and film).
       Additional $7,500,000 for National Constitution Center, PA 
     (Federal contribution).
       Earmark of $6,000,000 for National Underground RR Freedom 
     Center, OH.
       Earmark of $338,000 for New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, 
     NJ (exhibits, signage).
       Earmark of $800,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair 
     retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
       Earmark of $445,000 for New River Gorge NR, WV (repair 
     retaining wall, visitor facilities, technical support).
       Earmark of $10,000,000 for Palace of the Governors, NM 
     (build museum).
       Earmark of $203,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX 
     (completes visitor center).
       Earmark of $1,614,000 for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS, TX 
     (completes visitor center).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shiloh NMP, TN (erosion control).
       Earmark of $3,000,000 for Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage, 
     PA (rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $240,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
     headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
       Earmark of $330,000 for St. Croix NSR, WI (planning for VC/
     headquarters; rehabilitate river launch site).
       Earmark of $445,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections 
     building, fire suppression).
       Earmark of $20,000 for St. Gaudens NHS, NH (collections 
     building, fire suppression).
       Earmark of $340,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, 
     NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Statue of Liberty and Ellis 
     Island, NY/NJ (ferry terminal utilities).
       Earmark of $500,000 for Tuskegee Airmen NHS, AL 
     (stabilization planning).
       Earmark of $365,000 for U.S. Grant Boyhood Home, OH 
     (rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Vancouver NHR, WA (exhibits, 
     rehabilitation).
       Earmark of $739,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
       Earmark of $550,000 for Vicksburg NMP, MS (various).
       Earmark of $788,000 for Washita Battlefield NHS, OK 
     (visitor center planning).
       Earmark of $4,000,000 for Wheeling Heritage Area, WV
       Earmark of $38,000 for Wilson's Creek NB, MO (complete 
     library).
       Earmark of $200,000 for Wright Brothers NM, NC (planning 
     for visitor center restoration).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 to complete the Federal investment at 
     Fort Stanwix NM in New York.
       Language expecting the Service to provide the necessary 
     funds, within the amounts provided for Equipment Replacement, 
     to replace the landing craft at Cumberland Island NS and 
     replace the airplane at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
       Earmark of $300,000 to initiate a Lincoln Highway Study to 
     initiate a study to define the cultural significance and 
     value to the Nation of the Congaree Creek site in Lexington 
     County, SC, as part of the Congaree National Swamp Monument, 
     and a study for a national heritage area in the Upper 
     Housatonic Valley in Northwest Connecticut.
       Land Acquistion and Conservation Fund:
       Earmark of $200,000 for Apostle Islands NL (WI).
       Earmark of $1,200,000 for Appalachian NST (Ovoka Farm) 
     (VA).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Brandywine Battlefield (PA).
       Earmark of $1,200,000 for Chickamauga/Chattanooga NMP (TN).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Delaware Water Gap NRA (PA).
       Earmark of $3,250,000 for Ebey's Landing NHR (WA).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Gulf Islands NS (Cat Island) 
     (MS).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Ice Age NST (Wilke Tract) (WI).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Indiana Dunes NL (IN).
       Earmark of $1,300,000 for Mississippi National River RA 
     (Lower Phalen Creek) (MN).
       Earmark of $2,700,000 for Petroglyph NM (NM).
       Earmark of $2,200,000 for Saguaro NP (AZ).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Shenandoah NHA (VA).
       Earmark of $1,300,000 for Sitka NHP (Sheldon Jackson 
     College) (AK).
       Earmark of $1,100,000 for Sleeping Bear Dunes NL (MI).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for Stones River NB (TN).
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for Wrangell-St. Elias NP & Pres. 
     (AK).
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for the purchase of Cat Island, MS 
     (subject to authorization).
       Earmark of $1,000,000 included for the Shenandoah Valley 
     Battlefields National Historic District is contingent upon 
     the final approval by the Secretary of the Interior of the 
     Commission.
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for the intended purchase of patented 
     mining claims in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park by the 
     National Park Service.
       Earmark of $250,000 for the Hawaiian volcano program.
       Earmark of $475,000 for Yukon Flats geology surveys.
       Earmark of $1,200,000 for the Nevada gold study.
       Earmark of $300,000 for Lake Mead/Mojave research.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Lake Champlain toxic study.
       Earmark of $450,000 for Hawaiian water monitoring.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Southern Maryland aquifer 
     study.
       Earmark of $180,000 for a Yukon River chum salmon study.
       Earmark of $750,000 for the continuation of the Mark Twain 
     National Forest mining study to be accomplished in 
     cooperation with the water resources division and the Forest 
     Service.
       Earmark of $4,000,000 to create NBII `nodes' to work in 
     conjunction with private and public partners to provide 
     increased access to and organization of information to 
     address these and other challenges. These funds are to be 
     distributed as follows: $350,000 for Pacific Basin, Hawaii; 
     $1,000,000 for Southwest,

[[Page 20876]]

     Texas; $1,000,000 for Southern Appalachian, Tennessee; 
     $200,000 for Pacific Northwest, Washington; $250,000 for 
     Central Region, Ohio; $200,000 for North American Avian 
     Conservation, Maryland; $250,000 for Network Standards and 
     Technology, Colorado; $400,000 for Fisheries Node, Virginia 
     and Pennsylvania; $200,000 for California/Southwest 
     Ecosystems Node, California; and, $150,000 for Greater 
     Yellowstone Ecosystem Node, Montana.
       Language stating that funding is provided for light 
     distancing and ranging (LIDAR) technology to assist with 
     recovery of Chinook Salmon and Summer Chum Salmon under the 
     Endangered Species Act. These funds should be used in Mason 
     County, WA
     Bureau of Indian Affairs
       Earmark of $500,000 for Alaska subsistence.
       Earmark of $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for a distance learning, 
     telemedicine, fiber optic pilot program in Montana.
       Earmark of $146,000 for Alaska legal services.
       Earmark of $200,000 for forest inventory for the Uintah and 
     Ouray tribes.
       Earmark of $300,000 for a tribal guiding program in Alaska.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for the distance learning project on 
     the Crow, Fort Peck, and Northern Cheyenne reservations.
       Increase of $1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church 
     repairs, which completes this program as authorized.
       Increase of $50,000 for Walker River (Weber Dam).
       Increase of $200,000 for Pyramid Lake.
       Increase of $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Fishing 
     Settlement.


                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

     Forest Service
       Earmark of $250,000 to the University of Washington 
     silviculture effort at the Olympic Natural Resource Center. 
     The managers have also agreed with Senate direction 
     concerning funding levels for the wood utilization laboratory 
     in Sitka, AK, and for operations of the Forest Research 
     Laboratories located in Princeton, Parsons, and Morgantown, 
     WV, and funds for the CROP study on the Colville National 
     Forest, WA.
       Language which directs the Forest Service to provide total 
     operational funding of $750,000 to the Rapid City, SD, lab.
       Language which directs the Forest Service to provide 
     $502,000 in appropriated funds for the Wind River canopy 
     crane, WA. This funding includes proposed funding for the New 
     York City watershed and the Senate proposed funding for Utah 
     technical education and State of Washington stewardship 
     activities.
       An additional $750,000 for an update of the cooperative 
     study on the New York-New Jersey highlands area.
       Language directing $1,400,000 to the Ossippee Mountain 
     conservation, easement NH, and also to direct no less than 
     $2,000,000 to the Great Mountain, CT, easement, and no less 
     than $2,000,000 for the West Branch, ME, project.
       Language stating the importance of forest protection in 
     South Carolina and encourage the Forest Service to work with 
     the appropriate State agencies to ensure continuation of 
     these much needed protections.
       Increase of $450,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Study.
       Earmark of $500,000 for cooperative activities in Forest 
     Park in St. Louis, MO.
       Earmark of $250,000 in a direct lump sum payment for the 
     United Fisherman of Alaska to implement an educational 
     program to deal with subsistence management and other 
     fisheries issues.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 to assist a land transfer for Kake, 
     AK; these funds are contingent upon an authorization bill 
     being enacted.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 to cost-share kiln-drying facilities 
     in southeast and south-central Alaska.
       Language stating that the funds provided for reforestation 
     on abandoned mine lands in Kentucky are to be matched with 
     funds provided in this bill to the Department of Energy for 
     carbon sequestration research, as well as other non-federal 
     funds.
       Earmark of $900,000 for the University of Washington and 
     Washington State University extension forestry effort.
       Earmark of $1,878,000 for Columbia River Gorge economic 
     development in the States of Washington and Oregon.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the CROP project on the Colville 
     NF, WA.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for acid mine clean-up on the Wayne 
     NF, OH.
       Earmark of $360,000 for the Rubio Canyon waterline analysis 
     on the Angeles NF, CA.
       Increase of $1,500,000 increase for aquatic restoration in 
     Washington and Oregon.
       Increase of $1,250,000 increase for Lake Tahoe watershed 
     protection.
       Increase of $300,000 for invasive weed programs on the 
     Okanogan NF and other eastern Washington national forests 
     with no more than five percent of these funds to be assessed 
     as indirect costs.
       Earmark of $200,000 for the Batten Kill River, VT, project.
       Earmark of $700,000 for operations of the Continental 
     Divide trail.
       Earmark of $100,000 for the Monongahela Institute effort at 
     Seneca Rocks, WV.
       Earmark of $120,000 for the Monongahela NF, Cheat Mountain 
     assessment, WV.
       Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative recreational site 
     planning on the Wayne NF, OH.
       Earmark of $100,000 for cooperative efforts regarding 
     radios for use at Tuckerman's Ravine on the White Mountain 
     NF, NH.
       Earmark of $68,000 for the Talimena scenic byway.
       Language which directs the Forest Service to conduct a 
     feasibility study on constructing a recreational lake on the 
     Bienville NF in Smith County, MS.
       Earmark of $790,000 for forestry treatments on the Apache-
     Sitgreaves NF, AZ.
       Earmark of $250,000 for a Pacific Crest trail lands team.
       Earmark of $500,000 for special needs on the Pisgah and 
     Nantahala NFs.
       Additional $2,000,000 for the Quincy Library Group project, 
     CA.
       Additional $5,000,000 for Tongass NF, AK, timber pipeline.
       Earmark of $500,000 in the minerals and geology management 
     activity to support necessary administrative duties related 
     to the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
       Earmark of $600,000 is provided for cooperative research 
     and technology development between Federal fire research and 
     fire management agencies and the University of Montana 
     National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis.
       Earmark $263,000 for Apache-Sitgreaves NF, AZ, urban 
     interface.
       Earmark of $6,947,000 for windstorm damage in Minnesota.
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for the Lake Tahoe basin.
       Earmark of $2,400,000 for work on the Giant Sequoia 
     National Monument and Sequoia National Forests.
       Earmark of $7,500,000 is a direct lump sum payment to the 
     Kenai Peninsula Borough to complete the activities outlined 
     in the spruce bark beetle task force action plan. Ten percent 
     of these funds shall be made available to the Cook Inlet 
     Tribal Council for reforestation on Native inholdings and 
     Federal lands identified by the task force.
       Language emphasizing the need for a cost-share for the Grey 
     Towers, PA, funding.
       Language encouraging the Forest Service to work with Tulare 
     County, CA, on plans for recreational facilities.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for the Forest Service to develop a 
     campground in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley in the Mt. 
     Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, WA.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 to purchase non-development scenic 
     easements in Pingree Forest, ME.
       Earmark for Lake Tahoe, NV of $2,000,000 for cooperative 
     erosion grants in State and private forestry, $1,250,000 for 
     the NFS vegetation and watershed activity to enhance 
     restoration of sensitive watersheds, $1,500,000 in capital 
     improvement and maintenance to help fix the ailing road 
     system, and $1,500,000 in wildfire management funding to 
     enhance forest health by reducing hazardous fuel.
       Earmark of $5,500,000 for management of national forest 
     system lands for subsistence uses in Alaska as proposed by 
     the Senate.
       The Forest Service is encouraged to give priority to 
     projects for the Alaska jobs-in-the-woods program that 
     enhance the southeast Alaska economy, such as the Southeast 
     Alaska Intertie.
       Increase of $2,000,000 is provided for a demonstration of 
     solid oxide technology in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
       Earmark of $278,000 for the Golden, CO, field office.
     Indian Health Service
       Earmark of $225,000 for the Shoalwater Bay infant mortality 
     prevention program.
       Increases for the Alaska immunization program include 
     $70,000 for pay costs and $2,000 for additional 
     immunizations.
       Within the funding provided for contract health services, 
     the Indian Health Service should allocate an increase to the 
     Ketchikan Indian Corporation's (KIC) recurring budget for 
     hospital-related services for patients of KIC and the 
     Organized Village of Saxman (OVS) to help implement the 
     agreement reached by the Indian Health Service, KIC, OVS and 
     the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation on September 
     12, 2000. The additional funding will enable KIC to purchase 
     additional related services at the local Ketchikan General 
     Hospital.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for the Northwest Portland area AMEX 
     program.
       Earmark of $4,500,000 is provided for construction of the 
     Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's facility at Hilo, 
     Hawaii.


               title v--emergency/supplemental provisions

     Department of Interior
       $1,500,000 for the preparation and implementation of plans, 
     programs, or agreements identified by the State of Idaho that 
     will address habitat for freshwater aquatic species on non-
     Federal lands in the State.
       $1,000,000 to be made available to the State of Idaho to 
     fund habitat enhancement, maintenance, or restoration 
     projects consistent with such plans, programs, or agreements.
       $5,000,000 for the conservation and restoration of Atlantic 
     salmon in the Gulf of Maine,

[[Page 20877]]

     with funds provided to the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation, the Atlantic Salmon Commission and the National 
     Academy of Sciences for specified activities.
       $8,500,000 to various specific locales to repair or replace 
     buildings, equipment, roads, bridges, and water control 
     structures damaged by natural disasters; funds are to be used 
     for repairs to Service property in the states of Maryland, 
     New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
     Virginia, and Washington.
       $1,2000,000 for repair of the portions of the Yakima 
     Nation's Signal Peak Road.
       An additional $1,800,000 for repairs in Alaska, Colorado, 
     Connecticutt, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland-Delaware-
     Washington, D.C., Massachusetts-Rhode Island, Nevada, New 
     Hampshire-Vermont, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 
     North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and 
     Virginia.
     Department of Agriculture

       $2,000,000 for an avalanche prevention program in the 
     Chugach National Forest, Kenai National Park, Kenai National 
     Wildlife Refuge and nearby public lands.
       $7,249,000 to the National forest system for damage caused 
     by severe windstorms in the States of Minnesota and 
     Wisconsin.

Total earmarks in report...................................$372,064,000
Total supplemental/emergency earmarks........................28,249,000
Total combined earmarks.....................................400,313,000

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald, the 
Senator from Illinois, for his valiant effort to prevent a contract to 
be let without any competition. I do not understand why contracts that 
entail expenditure of taxpayers' funds should not be let in a 
competitive fashion so that the taxpayers can receive the maximum value 
for their investments in their Government. I congratulate Senator 
Fitzgerald for his valiant effort.
  This year's final agreement provides a much-needed infusion of 
funding for conservation, wildlife management, and Native American 
programs. However, once again, I express my objections to the amount of 
excessive pork barrel spending and extraneous legislative riders 
included in this final agreement.
  The agreement exceeds its overall budget by $2.5 billion, increasing 
spending by 25 percent, with funding levels that are close to $4 
billion higher than the House bill and $3 billion more than the Senate 
bill.
  We are entering a remarkable phase of American political history. The 
spigot is on, and it is on in a fashion I have not seen in the years I 
have spent in the Congress.
  The new conference agreement has taken pork barrel spending to higher 
proportions by adding more than $120 million more in earmarks that 
either were not included in the Senate or House bill or added funding 
for unrequested or unauthorized projects. In addition to higher amounts 
of pork barrel spending, appropriators conveniently designated billions 
more in emergency spending, including nearly $30 million in ``emergency 
funds'' for locale-specific earmarks.
  As I said, I have a list that was printed in the Record. Several of 
our favorites: $1.25 million for weed programs at Montana State 
University and Idaho--weed programs that are specific to two 
universities; $5.25 million for a new dormitory at the National 
Constitution Training Center; $20,000 for office renovations at the 
White Sulfur Springs National Fish Hatchery. Guess where. West 
Virginia. We have several fish hatcheries in my State of Arizona. I 
wonder if maybe we could get a little refurbishment for our offices, as 
well as those in West Virginia.
  There is $487,000 for a carriage barn in Longfellow National Historic 
Site in Massachusetts--a carriage barn.
  Here is one of my favorites. I think we should all be impressed by 
the pressing need for this: $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders 
Association. For the Reindeer Herders Association, $176,000 is 
earmarked.
  That also happens to be out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding. 
Never mind that we have dilapidated housing, terrible schools, 
nutrition programs that need to be funded in the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, my friends, but we put in $176,000 for that vitally needed 
Reindeer Herders Association. I am sure Santa Claus is very pleased 
that these funds will be going to the Reindeer Herders Association.
  You will find something very interesting, Mr. President, as I go 
through the list of earmarks and as people read the Record. You will 
see the names Alaska, West Virginia, Washington State, and Hawaii 
appear with amazing frequency, which I am sure is pure coincidence.
  So we have $1 million for a distance learning telemedicine, fiber-
optic pilot program in Montana.
  Here is an important one. Here is a vital item that had to be 
earmarked: $1.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in Alabama. I am 
not familiar with the Vulcan Statue, but I am sure it needed to be 
refurbished over any other statue in America that may need to be 
refurbished.
  Here is one that should interest taxpayers and entertain all of us: 
$400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club in New York. Take heart, all 
Southside sportsmen, help is on the way: $400,000 for your operations.
  There is $5 million for the Southeast--guess where--Alaska Economic 
Disaster Fund, which was not included in either the Senate or House 
proposals, ordered to be used for Craig, AK, to assist with economic 
development. Times are tough in Craig, my friends. They need $5 million 
in Craig.
  I urge those who are interested to find out what the population of 
Craig, AK, might be. I think that might turn out to be a fair amount of 
money per capita.
  There is $500,000 for administrative duties at the Kensington Mine in 
southeast Alaska--ta-da, Mr. President--for administrative duties at 
the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska.
  We have lots of mines in my State. I hope they will consider helping 
them with their administrative duties in their mines, as well.
  Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on.
  So $2 million for the purchase of Cat Island in Mississippi; $5 
million for a land transfer in Kake, AK; $4.6 million for the Wheeling 
National Heritage Area in West Virginia, which has received earmarks in 
previous Interior appropriations without any authorization. I should 
point out that new legislative language was tacked on to this report to 
finally authorize this project, although it certainly never went 
through the normal process of approval.
  I hope the taxpayers will be able to see how we are spending their 
dollars. It is remarkable.
  I believe in the debate one of the candidates was saying: You ain't 
seen nothing yet. Mr. President, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until 
we get to the omnibus bill which very few of us will have ever seen or 
read when we vote yes or no on it. We will have a remarkable document, 
one I think historians in the centuries ahead will view with interest 
and puzzlement.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.


              atlantic salmon conservation and restoration

  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for his invaluable help in 
securing funding for vital, time-sensitive, on-the-ground Atlantic 
salmon conservation and restoration programs in Maine on an emergency 
basis. Due to your efforts, $5.0 million in emergency appropriations 
were included in the Interior Appropriations conference report for this 
purpose. It is critical that these funds be on the ground this year in 
order to demonstrate a federal financial commitment to salmon in my 
State, and that a listing under the Endangered Species Act is not 
necessary to conserve and restore Maine's Atlantic salmon.
  Mr. GORTON. My home state, too, has experienced the disruption that a 
federal endangered species listing can cause. I therefore appreciate 
the importance and urgency of the funds sought by the Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. The emergency appropriation included in the Interior 
Appropriations conference report will make a substantial contribution 
to salmon conservation and restoration efforts in the State. The funds 
will be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (or 
``NFWF''), which has made a commitment to me to allocate the monies to 
worthwhile projects as soon as possible. The conference report provides 
$5.0 million to

[[Page 20878]]

NFWF, of which $2.0 million will be made available to the Atlantic 
Salmon Commission and $500,000 will be made available to the National 
Academy of Sciences. The remaining $2.5 million will be administered by 
NFWF to carry out a grant program that will fund on-the-ground projects 
to further Atlantic salmon conservation or restoration efforts in 
coordination with the State of Maine and the Maine Atlantic Salmon 
Conservation Plan.
  The conference report contains language indicating that funds 
administered by NFWF will be subject to cost sharing. Is it your 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this language means the $2.5 million 
administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program must be matched, in 
the aggregate, by at least $2.5 million in non-federal funds?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Maine is correct. I expect that the $2.5 
million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5 
million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
  Ms. COLLINS. And is it also your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 
the $2.0 million made available to the Atlantic Salmon Commission and 
the $500,000 made available to the National Academy of Sciences will 
not be subject to any matching requirement?
  Mr. GORTON. That is also correct.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to again thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In crafting this conference 
report, he has accomplished a Herculean task with this usual grace and 
skill. And the $5.0 million he has helped secure will promote a 
vigorous and effective salmon conservation and restoration effort in my 
State.
  Mr. GORTON. As I have said before, I greatly admire the Senator from 
Maine's tenacity and her unfailing devotion to the best interests of 
her State.


                  lake tahoe land acquisition colloquy

  Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request your help 
interpreting the language that was inserted into the conference report 
pertaining to the use of funds appropriated for the acquisition of 
environmentally sensitive property at Lake Tahoe. That language states 
that no funds may be used to acquire urban lots. To my knowledge, 
``urban lots'' is a term that is not defined in this bill or any 
related statute or regulation. As a result, I want to make sure that we 
clarify what we intend by the term urban lot.
  As you know, the plan to protect Lake Tahoe is predicated in large 
part of the Lake Tahoe Preservation Act of 1981 (H.R. 7306), commonly 
known as the Santini-Burton Act, and companion California and Nevada 
bond acts. Together, these State and Federal acts provide for the 
purchase and stewardship of environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake 
Tahoe Basin. The legislative history of the Santini-Burton Act 
indicated that approximately $150 million worth of land in Lake Tahoe 
would be purchased (approximately $100 million has been expended to 
date). The Santini-Burton Act generally identified lands eligible for 
purchase, and was followed by the adoption of a comprehensive plan 
identifying specific criteria for purchases. That plan was subject to 
an Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying public comment 
process, and this plan remains in effect to this day.
  I am confident that, with the correct information in hand, Congress 
will direct the Forest Service to go forward with the completion of the 
program. In the meantime, however, the effort to protect Lake Tahoe is 
likely to sustain significant damage if the language in the conference 
report is mistakenly interpreted to reverse long standing policy 
decisions. That is why I am asking for your concurrence to direct the 
Forest Service to interpret the language in a manner consistent with 
the existing program.
  Specifically, I want to make it clear that the term ``urban lot'' 
does not include environmentally sensitive lands. The current program 
designates a property's eligibility for acquisition according to its 
environmental sensitivity because that is the purpose of the 
acquisition program. Such designations reflect extensive analysis and 
the support of the local community. This report language should not be 
interpreted to change this methodology such that acquisition 
eligibility is based on an unspecified and invariably random geographic 
distinction. In all likelihood, any ill-conceived geographic standard 
would exclude the most environmentally sensitive property that the 
ongoing program is designed to protect.
  I believe that the report language is consistent with the current 
practice of federal land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe basin. Do you 
share my understanding that the definition of ``urban lots'' includes 
only those properties that are presently qualified for urban 
development?
  Mr. GORTON. That is my understanding.
  Mr. REID. Then it makes sense for any prohibition on land acquisition 
referred to in the report language to apply only if to properties that 
satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) they are not adjacent to 
current forest system lands, (2) they are within Tahoe Regional 
Planning Agency's urban boundaries, (3) they are not adjacent to Lake 
Tahoe, or to waters or streamzones tributary to Lake Tahoe, and (4) 
they are presently eligible to take residential or commercial 
development. This clarification integrates the intent of the new 
conference report language to limit such acquisitions to essential 
sensitive lands while retaining the basic purpose of the Lake Tahoe 
land acquisition program.
  Mr. GORTON. In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from 
Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake 
Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your 
interpretation of the language in question.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Chairman's understanding and concurrence 
on this very important issue.


          regarding sec. 156 and accompanying report language

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, I included language 
in this bill that directs the Department of Interior to finalize the 
so-called 3809 regulations, which govern hardrock mining operations on 
public lands, and to do so consistently with the findings and 
recommendations of a study completed by the National Research Council 
or NRC. The language is identical to language enacted in last year's 
omnibus bill. I want to emphasize my intent in offering this language, 
and request the Chairman's understanding and concurrence. Briefly, my 
intent is to ensure that the Department of Interior finalizes a rule 
that protects the environment and that takes into account the direction 
of Congress and the findings and recommendations of the NRC report.
  Mr. GORTON. I am glad to assist my friend, the senior Senator from 
Nevada. In clarifying Congress' intent in enacting these provisions. I 
agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to 
study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is 
consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year Congress adopted this requirement 
that Interior finalize 3809 rule changes only if they are ``not 
inconsistent'' with the recommendations of the NRC report I already 
described. Parsing this statutory language to the point of absurdity, 
the Interior Solicitor quickly wrote and circulated a legal opinion 
concluding that Congress intended by this action to require Interior's 
consideration only of material in the report specifically labeled as 
``recommendations''--amounting only to a few lines of the report--and 
no other information in the report. And, he went on to conclude that 
this law imposes no significant limitations on the agency's ability to 
finalize its proposed 3809 rule. This year we have adopted the 
consistency requirement again, just as it was written last year. I ask 
the Chairman, did we enact the language again just to ratify the legal 
conclusion that Interior could finalize 3809 rules essentially without 
restrictions?
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act 
again this year just to ratify the actions of

[[Page 20879]]

the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original 
intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any 
final 3809 regulations promulgated be consistent with that report.
  Mr. REID. One last question that I have concerns a statement made by 
some of our House colleagues during House consideration of the FY 2001 
Interior appropriations bill in which they suggested an interpretation 
of the ongoing rulemaking including broad discretion to deny mining 
permits, by redefining the existing statutory definition of unnecessary 
or undue degradation. Does the Chairman of the subcommittee who helped 
develop this language agree that our House colleagues are suggesting an 
interpretation that clearly goes beyond current law and that section 
156 specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be 
construed to expand existing authority.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in 
this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory 
authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House 
colleagues would require additional statutory authority which Interior 
does not have and is specifically denied by this bill.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chairman for his help in clarifying the 
Committee's intent.


              u.s. forest service national fire retardants

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee on an issue that affects the Forest Service 
and forest fire fighting in the West.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be glad to engage in such a discussion with my 
friend, the distinguished Chairman of Forest and Public Lands 
Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service has announced its 
intention to move to gum thickened/sodium ferrocyanide aerially applied 
fire retardants in the 2004 bid process. The Service is to be commended 
for this initiative that seeks a more effective and environmentally 
friendly means to address the wildfires with which we have become so 
painfully accustomed in the West. Indeed, the Forest Service's own 
research shows that gum thickened retardants are 25-40 percent more 
effective than un-thickened retardants. The criteria called for in 
2004, though, can be met today. Is it the Committee's view that the 
U.S. Forest Service should be striving for a more environmentally 
friendly product and should use such a product as soon as possible?
  Mr. GORTON. I agree with that view. It should be the U.S. Forest 
Service's priority to use the most effective, environmentally 
protective aerially applied fire retardants.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the after-effects of wildfires 
are devastating to the landscape. Mother Nature has a way of bringing 
life back to the land when all appears lost. However, even Mother 
Nature cannot erase for years the stains on the lands caused by some 
aerially applied fire retardants. This is especially of concern where 
historical and archeological resources, national parks, wilderness 
areas and urban/wilderness areas are concerned. Would you agree that 
U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option for local foresters to 
use less staining fugitive retardants where, in their judgment, it is 
warranted?
  Mr. GORTON. I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should 
preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize 
the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Forest Service has historically 
supported competition in the supply of fire retardants through the 
inclusion of a viability clause in its bids. For the first time, the 
upcoming 2001 bid process may be conducted by sealed bid. It is unclear 
whether viability will be a consideration. This is a critical issue in 
a fire season like the one we just experienced. Would you agree that 
the U.S. Forest Service should support competition in the supply of 
aerially applied fire retardants?
  Mr. GORTON. I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high 
performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to 
the mission of the Service.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for this clarification.


          great falls historic district, paterson, new jersey

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator 
Gorton, about one aspect of the conference report.
  Mr. Chairman, the conference report to the Interior Appropriations 
bill for Fiscal Year 2001 does not include funding for construction 
projects in the Great Falls Historic District, located in the City of 
Paterson, New Jersey.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Great Falls 
Historic District was established in Section 510 of Public Law 104-33, 
the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legislation, which I coauthored, 
is designed to preserve the historic character of the City of Paterson, 
New Jersey. Like Lowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holds a prominent 
place in our nation's industrial past. Few people realize that Paterson 
was the first planned industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton himself 
chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory, and he 
established the Society for Useful Manufacturers right in Paterson. The 
work of its citizens and the wealth of its natural resources soon 
caused Paterson to thrive, and it became a mecca for countless numbers 
of immigrants, including my own family. The skills and spirit of these 
immigrants made Paterson one of our nation's leading centers for 
textile manufacturing, earning the nickname ``Silk City.''
  Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislation authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior to provide grants through the Historic Preservation Fund for 
up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan for the development of 
historic, architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources 
within the Great Falls District. The Secretary may also provide 
matching funds for implementation of projects identified in the plan. 
The total federal authorization for the Great Falls Historic District 
is $3.3 million.
  Mr. Chairman, since the authorizing legislation establishing the 
Great Falls Historic District specifically enables the City to receive 
up to $250,000 in matching federal funds for preparation of a historic 
preservation plan, the Secretary could provide these funds through the 
funds provided in the conference report for the Historic Preservation 
Fund.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. This bill includes appropriations 
from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible 
projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman that the Great Falls project is 
eligible to receive Historic Preservation Funds, for preparation of its 
plan.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Great Falls 
Historic District would be eligible to receive up to $250,000 of these 
funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, and that, once 
these plans are completed, an additional $50,000 in matching funds is 
available from the Historic Preservation Fund for technical assistance 
and $3 million is available for restoration, preservation, and 
interpretive activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the Mayor of the 
City of Paterson to the regional director of the National Park Service, 
expressing the City's interest in moving forward with development of 
the Great Falls development plan. I hope that this letter will confirm 
to the Service and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, that the City is 
fully prepared to provide the necessary match to develop the plan. I am 
confident that the City will work closely with the Service on 
development of a plan, and that, once it is completed, the City may 
apply for the remaining authorized funds for completion of specific 
projects.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this matter, and I 
ask

[[Page 20880]]

unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be inserted in the Record.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 City of Paterson,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                    Paterson, NJ, October 4, 2000.
     Marie Rust,
     Northeast Regional Director, National Park Service, 200 
         Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.

     Re: Public Law 104-333.

       Dear Ms. Rust: This is to reaffirm our sincere interest in, 
     and need of, the funding of Public Law 104-333. Ever since 
     the authorization of the 3.3 million dollars for the Great 
     Falls Redevelopment Act we have been anxiously awaiting the 
     appropriation. We are committed to provide the necessary 
     local match.
       The preparation of the Development Plan required by the Act 
     is an essential first step in documenting the feasibility of 
     a National Park. After the Plan, our two primary activities 
     in the district remain to be the redevelopment of the former 
     ATP Site including the Gun Mill and the rehabilitation of the 
     raceway. Both projects are essential to the achievement of 
     the economic development objectives of the Urban History 
     Initiative. The initial Gun Mill stabilization has been 
     successfully completed. We are awaiting the execution of the 
     Programmatic Agreement so that we may continue with the 
     engineering and other site preparation and stabilization work 
     for the former ATP Site. The overall raceway and 
     prioritization has been completed. Final plans are ready for 
     the Upper Raceway section.
       We continue to pursue other sources of funding including 
     TEA-21 Enhancement, the New Jersey Historic Trust, New Jersey 
     Green Acres, and others. If these are not successful I will 
     ask the City Council to bond any remaining local share. This 
     is to assure you that we will secure the local match for 
     whatever amount Congress appropriates.
           Very truly yours,
                                           Martin G. Barnes,      
                                                            Mayor.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been a long time supporter of 
CARA--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The concept behind CARA 
was a visionary one--to take revenues generated from the extraction of 
offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest them permanently and 
automatically in our nation's invaluable wildlife, coastal, and public 
land resources.
  The CARA proposal that was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan way 
by the Senate Energy Committee offered an opportunity for this Congress 
to make an historic contribution to conservation and to truly leave 
behind a legacy that we could be proud of and from which our children 
would benefit.
  Instead, we are faced with a situation in which this overwhelmingly 
popular bill will never be considered on the Senate floor.
  The House passed its version of CARA back in May by an overwhelming 
vote of 315 to 102; it was a vote that brought in supporters from 
across the political spectrum and around the country. More recently, a 
letter signed by 63 Senators was sent to the Senate leadership 
requesting that CARA be brought to the floor.
  Yet the Republican leadership has refused to let this bill move 
forward.
  I ask my colleagues, what does it take to get a vote around here? How 
can we say that we are doing the people's business, if a bill that is 
as broadly supported as CARA cannot even be voted upon?
  We have now been presented with a package in the Interior 
appropriations bill that purports to fulfill the goals of CARA. I am 
tremendously disappointed to say that this package does very little to 
accomplish the goals of CARA.
  CARA would have provided nearly $45 billion to important conservation 
programs over the next 15 years. The Interior proposal provides roughly 
$6 billion and only makes those funds available for the next 6 years.
  But far more disappointing than the discrepancy in funding levels is 
the fact that the Interior proposal does little to guarantee that these 
funds will actually be made available each year for specific 
conservation purposes.
  Instead, the Interior proposal will force important and beneficial 
programs like Urban Parks and Recreation to battle against other 
important programs like the Historic Preservation program for funding 
each year.
  What made CARA remarkable was the fact that it would have provided 
the Urban Parks program, or state fish and wildlife agencies, or 
endangered species recovery efforts, with a predictable and reliable 
amount of funding.
  This feature would have ensured that important conservation efforts 
would NOT be subject to the uncertainties of the annual appropriations 
cycle, but instead could be certain that funding would be available 
over the long term. And as a result, these conservation programs could 
have finally planned and implemented ambitious, long-term conservation 
efforts. The Interior appropriations proposal fails to provide this 
sort of certainty.
  I will vote for the Interior appropriations bill. The bill funds many 
important programs that I care about and in making a nod to CARA it 
will provide some increased funding for things like the state's portion 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I am also pleased that the most egregious anti-environmental riders 
that appeared in earlier versions of this bill have been removed.
  However, I hope nobody will interpret my vote for this bill as a sign 
of support for what I view as a hijacking of CARA. I remain deeply 
disturbed that a bill that had the potential to do as much good as CARA 
will never see the light of day.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret 
that I rise today to oppose the Conference Report to the Interior 
Appropriations bill.
  I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference 
report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands 
for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds 
down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including 
several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. The bill 
includes two projects that have been particularly important to me and 
for which I requested funding--the Lamprey River & St. Gaudens. I 
appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations Committee to provide that 
funding.
  Unfortunately, notwithstanding these and other good provisions, the 
bill fails to deliver what we as elected officials have promised the 
American people. I want to take this opportunity to explain, especially 
to my fellow Granite Staters, why I am voting against the Interior 
Appropriations Conference Report.
  First, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not include full 
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund or for the many 
important programs included in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. 
In failing to provide this funding, I believe that we have truly 
squandered an opportunity that may never exist again. Even more 
importantly, I believe we failed to live up to the promise we made 
years ago to dedicate a percentage of the revenues from oil and gas 
production on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation and 
enhancement of fish, wildlife, lands and waters.
  Congress came close to keeping that promise when the House passed by 
an overwhelming margin of three to one a landmark conservation bill--
the so-called Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a companion bill in July. 
The CARA bill reflects our collective commitment to investing in the 
environment for ourselves and for future generations.
  I am proud that I was able to play a part in bringing attention to 
the bill in the Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held a hearing on the Senate 
bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although that 
Committee, which I chair, did not have primary jurisdiction over the 
bill, I felt it was important to hold the hearing to help build support 
for the legislation and to highlight some of the very important 
programs that would be enhanced by the passage of the bill. These 
programs included funding for the Endangered Species Act and Pittman-
Robertson Act, both of which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. I said it then, and I want to reaffirm 
it today. Now is the

[[Page 20881]]

time for the Federal government to step up to the plate and assist in 
the efforts to protect our natural resources--not by grabbing up more 
Federal land, but by working in partnership with States and private 
landowners and providing much-needed funding for critically underfunded 
programs. The CARA bill would have done that.
  Instead, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes a 
mere shadow of the real CARA.
  Instead of providing full permanent funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, the Interior Conference Report appropriates only 
$600 million for one year and only $90 million of that is allocated for 
stateside funding. The CARA bill I cosponsored would have provided the 
States with a guaranteed $450 million a year to conduct numerous 
worthwhile conservation projects, including creating new parks and 
building soccer fields. The limited appropriation provided by the 
Conference Report, by contrast, with no guarantees for future years, 
isn't CARA; it's business as usual.
  The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors. 
Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation 
spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches, 
shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans--94 percent believe 
we should be spending more money on land and water conservation.
  I agree with those Americans who believe that it's time to invest 
some of the budget surplus in our environment. For years now, we have 
been telling the tax payers that there isn't any money available for 
conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the 
burdens of saving our land and natural resources. Well, in my opinion, 
those days are over. It's past time for the federal government to 
contribute its fair share, and the Interior Conference Report falls far 
short in that respect.
  Second, I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Conference 
Report provides no protections for private property rights. CARA did. 
The real CARA bill provided an unprecedented level of protection for 
the private land owner. For example, the Senate CARA bill that I 
cosponsored expressly prohibited the Federal government from using any 
CARA funds to implement regulations on private property. In addition, 
all Federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund would have been subject to significantly more 
restrictions than under current law. Not one of those private property 
rights protections is included in the Interior Appropriations 
Conference Report.
  Third, I cannot support the language in the Conference Report that 
establishes a vague new Federal ``wildlife conservation program'' that 
imposes new, but undefined, obligations on the States and gives broad 
discretion to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to define those 
obligations. The Interior Appropriations Conference Report directs the 
Fish and Wildlife Service to create a new $300 million state grant 
program subject only to the approval of the Committee on 
Appropriations. That is inappropriate.
  The Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for 
overseeing wildlife programs; it is our prerogative and responsibility 
to review, discuss, and ultimately authorize any wildlife program. Yet, 
this new program was inserted at the last minute, behind closed doors, 
without any public debate or consultation with the Committee of 
jurisdiction. For that reason, I must oppose its inclusion in this 
Conference Report. The concept may be a good one, but this is not the 
right process or the appropriate vehicle.
  Finally, I must oppose the Conference Report because of the adverse 
impact it will have on thousands of citizens of New Hampshire who 
depend upon and enjoy the White Mountain National Forest.
  When the Senate passed its Interior Appropriations bill in July, it 
included an important provision excluding the White Mountain National 
Forest from this Administration's broad policy of prohibiting the 
construction of all new roads in previously undisturbed areas of 
national forests, the so-called roadless policy. We excluded the White 
Mountain National Forest from this ``one-size-fits-all'' roadless 
policy, not because we want thousands of miles of new roads in the 
White Mountains, but because these decisions should be made at the 
local level through the forest planning process, by the people who live 
near, enjoy, and use the National Forest.
  I have deep concerns about the Administration's roadless policy 
because I believe it is intended to limit public access and legitimate 
public use of our national forests. But even more importantly, in the 
context of the White Mountain National Forest, it would specifically 
override an existing forest management plan that maintains a balance 
between economic activity, recreation and environmental protection--a 
forest management plan that was developed through a collaborative 
process involving state and local government officials, local citizens, 
and federal officials. I firmly believe that States and local citizens 
should play a significant role in making the management decisions 
relating to the forest lands in their communities, including the 
decisions about roads.
  It was for that reason that I strongly supported the language that 
was included in the Senate bill that allowed the citizens of New 
Hampshire to make those decisions through the forest planning process 
for the White Mountain National Forest, rather than simply mandating a 
blanket roadless policy from Washington, D.C. That important provision, 
however, has now been dropped from the Conference Report. I believe 
that Washington D.C.'s roadless policy will hurt New Hampshire. It will 
have significant economic, social, and ecological impacts. And it will 
undermine the cooperative dialogue that took place during the revision 
of the forest plan. Therefore, I cannot support a Conference Report 
that does not include language protecting the White Mountain National 
Forest from unnecessary and inappropriate interference from 
Washington's bureaucrats.
  The Interior Appropriations bill passed by the Senate last July also 
included a specific exemption for North Country residents from the user 
fees that the National Forest Service charges for access to the White 
Mountain National Forest. That exemption has now been deleted.
  I have long been opposed to user fees in the White Mountain National 
Forest because I believe it is fundamentally unfair to local residents. 
In areas, like the North Country of New Hampshire, where the Federal 
Government owns much of the land, communities lose a significant 
portion of their property tax base which they need to fund schools and 
other necessary social programs and infrastructure. Residents in these 
communities then have to make up the shortfall. The user fee, on top of 
the loss in local tax revenue, imposes an unfair burden for local 
citizens. It is wrong for the Federal government to charge local 
residents in the North Country a fee for enjoying the White Mountain 
National Forest when they are already subsidizing the Forest.
  As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this 
Interior Conference Report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have 
done and appreciate the support they have given to important New 
Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I 
oppose the Conference Report.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak 
about two provisions of great concern to my state of Minnesota. While 
this conference report clearly missed the opportunity to make a 
historic, long term, commitment to our environmental heritage, I rise 
in support of this legislation because it does represent an important 
first step in many conservation accounts, and includes vital funding to 
restore Minnesota's National Forests.
  First of all, I want to make clear that I am disappointed that the 
full Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, was not included in this 
Interior Appropriations bill. CARA, as reported out of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is landmark legislation that 
would commit $3

[[Page 20882]]

billion annually for 15 years to conservation and natural resource 
protection. CARA would provide $37.4 million of stable funding annually 
to the conservation and protection of Minnesota's natural resources.
  However the compromise in this bill does not reflect the spirit or 
intent of the full CARA bill. First of all this Conference report does 
not guarantee multiple year funding for the states, which was the 
entire premise of CARA. When it comes to protecting our coastlines (on 
the North Shore in Minnesota) and open spaces (in Northern Minnesota), 
expanding our urban parks (in the metro Twin Cities area), or investing 
in wildlife conservation, the annual appropriation approach has proven 
not to work in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. In 
addition, the report does not include dedicated funding for wildlife 
conservation programs, which puts Minnesota's wildlife conservation 
needs in competition with other state conservation programs, and makes 
it possible that Minnesota would receive no funds for wildlife 
preservation from this legislation. While, overall I am encouraged that 
this legislation more than doubles conservation funding from the $742 
million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 billion in FY 2000, we 
should not loose sight of the fact that this conference report is 
clearly no substitute for a full funded CARA bill.
  On a related matter, I am pleased the conference committee has 
restored the balance of the Forest Service's request for Minnesota's 
National Forests. During consideration of the Interior Appropriations 
bill, Senators Gorton and Byrd agreed to my amendment to include $7.2 
million in additional emergency funds for Minnesota's National Forests. 
And today the Senate will take an important step that will restore the 
balance of emergency funds requested earlier this year by the Superior, 
Chippewa and Chequamegon National Forests' for blowdown recovery 
efforts.
  Furthermore, this legislation includes an important regular, FY 2001 
appropriation for the Superior National Forest, that my colleague from 
Minnesota and I were able to work on together. These monies would be 
available to the Forest Service next year and are vital to continued 
recovery efforts in northern Minnesota.
  These national forests bore the brunt of a massive once-in-a-thousand 
year wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern Minnesota on 
July 4, 1999. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties, 
including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests, 
and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has 
severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly 
manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests.
  The most troubling aspect of this storm for the people of northern 
Minnesota is the continued extreme risk of a catastrophic fire 
resulting from the tremendous amount of downed and dead timber. Funding 
provided to the Forest Service through this legislation will be used 
for immediate and future recovery efforts, and to reduce the threat of 
a major wildland fire.
  The storm has changed affected portions of the forests for years to 
come and has created new risks and experiences for visitors and 
residents. Since July 4th, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests 
officials have been working with state, county, and local officials on 
storm recovery activities and planning to meet future needs.
  Immediately after the storm the Forest Service, in conjunction with 
State, County and local governments began a search and rescue operation 
that lasted for 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999. Fortunately not a 
single life was lost in the storm, however there were 20 medical 
evacuations from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW. The 
most severe case was a broken neck. In addition, the forest Service 
conducted a search of 2,200 camp sights in the BWCAW to ensure no one 
was trapped. And finally USFS crews cleared approx. 200 miles of roads, 
and reconstructed 6 miles of emergency roads.
  Once the emergency search and rescue was completed, the U.S. Forest 
Service turned their attention to reducing hazards that could 
negatively affect visitors, residents and local businesses that depend 
on the BWCAW and the National Forests. The Forest Service brought in 
191 people including an administrative team and several crews from 
across the country to return facilities to a safe condition so they 
could be reopened and used during the rest of the year.
  And now the Superior National Forest is proposing to reduce the risk 
of fire escaping the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, by 
using prescribed burning within the wilderness. The 1.1 million-acre 
BWCAW, located in northeastern Minnesota adjacent to the Canadian 
border, is one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the United 
States.
  The proposal is to reduce the increased risk of wildfire associated 
with the July 4, 1999, storm. The proposed action is to treat 
approximately 47,000 to 81,000 acres of the wilderness with prescribed 
fire over a five to six year time period.
  The goal of this project is to improve public safety by reducing the 
potential for high intensity wildland fires to spread from the BWCAW 
into areas of intermingled ownership, which include homes, cabins, 
resorts and other improvements, or across the international border into 
Canada. This will be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to 
ecological and wilderness values, and protects fire personnel and BWCAW 
visitor safety during implementation.
  While the Forest Service has been engaged in this work for many 
months, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going 
to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the 
forest to a more normal and healthy state. However this cannot happen 
without adequate funding. This is a victory for all of Minnesota, and I 
am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased that 
the Senate approved the remainder of these badly needed funds today, 
especially for the people of northern Minnesota, who cannot wait.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the conference 
report for Interior appropriations before this body today makes a 
significant investment in Wisconsin's only unit of the National Park 
System, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Lakeshore recently 
celebrated its 30th anniversary on September 26, 2000, and I rise today 
to express my gratitude to the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for working with me 
to ensure that some of the highest priority needs at the Lakeshore are 
met.
  I have been raising the need for these funds since 1998. On April 22 
of that year, I introduced legislation, named for former Senator 
Gaylord Nelson who was the sponsor of the federal legislation that 
created the Lakeshore, to try to make sure that the Park Service has 
the funds included in this bill today. This bill helps to fund a 
wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the 
Wilderness Act. Most of the Lakeshore is managed as wilderness, yet the 
required study has not yet been completed so that Congress can evaluate 
whether there is a need for a formal legal designation. This bill 
retains amendment language that I offered during the Senate 
consideration of Interior appropriations and provides $200,000 for that 
purpose.
  The bill also provides funds to the Park Service to protect the 
history Raspberry and Outer Island lighthouses which are threatened by 
erosion. The 21 islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have 
six lighthouses, the greatest number of lighthouses on any property in 
federal ownership anywhere in the country. They are all at least 100 
years old, and many of them are still used as aids to navigation and 
are in need of Federal help.
  By providing funds in this bill to ensure the success of the 
Lakeshore we contribute to another larger success--our efforts to clean 
and protect our environment and provide places for people to rest and 
refresh themselves. I have been very pleased in the willingness of the 
bill's managers to support

[[Page 20883]]

my efforts to draw attention to this park. They have other, bigger 
parks that also have funding needs. But the managers understood my 
appeal on behalf of the people of Wisconsin with these funds. They 
know, as I do, that when the American people sit among the hemlocks on 
Outer Island, walk along the shore, travel to Devils Island, observe 
the waters of Lake Superior, they know protection of the Apostles is 
worth a federal investment.
  The investments in the Apostles are authorized investments, part of 
the requirements that we gave the Park Service when we created the 
Lakeshore. As delighted as I am that these funds have been included by 
the managers, I remain concerned about the fact that this bill provides 
funds and policy direction for unauthorized projects, authorizes new 
projects and continues to contain a number of policy riders that affect 
environmental protection. Because these riders remain, I will vote 
against the bill.
  I am concerned that this body is becoming habituated to the practice 
of environmental legislation by rider. This leaves Members of this 
body, like myself, who are very concerned about legislation which has 
the potential to adversely effect the implementation of environmental 
law, or change federal natural resource policy, with limited options. 
We must, by either striking the riders, or trying to modify their 
efforts, do the work of the authorizing committees on the floor of this 
body. With limited floor time on spending bills, and with the pressure 
to pass appropriations bills or risk shutting down or disrupting 
important Government programs, we do not do the best by the environment 
that we can and must do in our legislative efforts.
  I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending 
bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially 
environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the 
federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law.
  For more than two decades, we have been a remarkable bipartisan 
consensus on protecting the environment through effective environmental 
legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the 
American people to protect the quality of our public lands and 
resources. That responsibility requires that the Senate express its 
strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in 
spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially 
beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced 
by the federal agencies that carry out Federal law.
  Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 
counties. When I hold these meetings, the people of Wisconsin continue 
to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending 
bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being 
made without the benefit of an up or down vote.
  When this bill passed the Senate initially on July 18, 2000, I was 
one of two Senators to vote against it because of legislative riders. I 
know that the bill managers worked long and hard to keep a number of 
the most controversial riders, many of which I was concerned about, off 
of this bill and I commend them for that. However, I am also concerned 
that there is a category of riders to which we have become habituated: 
riders on Alaska red cedar, riders on mining regulations, riders on 
grazing permits. There are also new authorizing provisions in this 
bill, such as developing forensic laboratory service fees for Fish and 
Wildlife investigations into wildlife mortality, and a new program to 
develop a reduced fee program for developing a reduced fee program to 
accommodate nonlocal travel through the National Park System. Why 
aren't these matters being discussed in the authorizing committees? 
These issues may have merit, but I think they should be handled by the 
committees of jurisdiction.
  We cannot continue to put the Appropriations Committee in the 
position of having to decide which of these riders are more or less 
important. These measures need to be referred to the authorizing 
committees, and we need to restore the trust of the American people 
that we are proceeding with the people's business in a fashion which 
allows for open debate and actual deliberation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in strong 
support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4578, the Interior 
and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the joint 
House-Senate conference committee, I appreciate the difficult task 
before the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member to 
balance the diverse priorities funded in this bill--from our public 
lands, to major Indian programs and agencies, energy conservation and 
research, and the Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done 
a masterful job meeting important program needs in this final bill.
  The pending conference report provides an unprecedented $18.9 billion 
in new budget authority and $11.9 billion in new outlays to fund the 
Department of Interior and related agencies. When outlays from prior-
year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into 
account the Senate bill totals $18.9 billion in BA and $17.4 billion in 
outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Senate bill is exactly at the revised 
section 302(b) allocation for both BA and in outlays filed by the 
Appropriations Committee earlier today.
  I would particularly like to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd 
for their commitment to Indian programs in this year's Interior and 
related agencies appropriation bill. They have included increases of 
$160 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs education construction, $214 
million for the Indian Health Service, and nearly $102 million for the 
operation of Indian programs.
  I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for bringing 
this important measure to the floor with significant resources totaling 
$1.6 billion to address the aftermath of the devastating summer and 
fall forest fires, including my initiative to undertake hazardous fuels 
reduction activities within the urban/wildland interface to protect our 
local communities--the so-called Happy Forests initiative.
  This bill also includes an important, bipartisan compromise to 
establish a new Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure 
Program that will dedicate $12 billion over the next six years to 
conservation programs. This is an unprecedented commitment to 
conservation efforts by the Federal Government. I am pleased to support 
this initiative in its final form.
  I appreciate the consideration given by my colleagues to several 
priority items for my constituents in New Mexico, which are included in 
the final bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the final version of the fiscal year 
2001 Interior and related agencies Appropriations bill, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    H.R. 4578, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2001, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
               [Fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority.....................     18,883         59     18,942
  Outlays..............................     17,284         70     17,354
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................     18,883         59     18,942
  Outlays..............................     17,284         70     17,354
2000 level:
  Budget authority.....................     14,769         59     14,828
  Outlays..............................     14,833         83     14,916
President's request:
  Budget authority.....................     16,413         59     16,472
  Outlays..............................     15,967         70     16,037
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................     14,723         59     14,782
  Outlays..............................     15,164         70     15,234
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................     15,875         59     15,934
  Outlays..............................     15,591         70     15,661
     CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................  .........  .........  .........
  Outlays..............................  .........  .........  .........
2000 level:
  Budget authority.....................      4,114  .........      4,114
  Outlays..............................      2,451        -13      2,438
President's request \1\
  Budget authority.....................      2,470  .........      2,470
  Outlays..............................      1,317  .........      1,317
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................      4,160  .........      4,160
  Outlays..............................      2,120  .........      2,120
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................      3,008  .........      3,008

[[Page 20884]]

 
  Outlays..............................      1,693  .........      1,693
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comparison between the conference report and the President's
  request is skewed because the conference report includes $1.5 billion
  in emergency firefighting funds that the President indicated he would
  request, but for which OMB never submitted a formal request to the
  Congress, so the amount is not reflected in the President's request.
 
 AAAAAANote.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals
  adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am in line for time, but I would be 
happy to yield to the Senator for 5 or 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I just need the 30 minutes that were reserved for me. I 
would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have 
many times in the last couple of months, to speak about an issue that 
is so important for so many Members in the Senate, and our colleagues 
on the House side, and to supporters everywhere, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act.
  We will be voting on the Interior appropriations bill in just a few 
moments. I plan, with all due respect to those who have worked on this 
bill--and I acknowledge their hard work--to vote no because it fails to 
embrace the principles outlined in the Conservation and Reinvestment 
Act.
  I express my respect for the members of the Appropriations Committee. 
They have a very tough job. They are charged with a great 
responsibility. While we have disagreed over this particular issue, we 
have worked together as we have tried and continue to try to reach a 
bipartisan compromise over this great battle for a legacy for our 
environment.
  In particular, I thank Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, our chairman, 
and Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, our ranking member, who 
have been very attentive to the calling and the requests of the CARA 
supporters in this regard. While we have disagreed on this issue, it 
has not been personal. My remarks today are intended strictly to be 
constructive and hopefully to help us chart a course to navigate in the 
future on this important issue.
  I will read into and submit for the Record the excellent comments 
from individuals and Governors and mayors reflected in newspapers 
around our country, literally from the west coast to the east coast, 
from the south to the north, from interior communities to coastal 
communities, literally thousands and thousands of positive editorials 
and articles written about what we are attempting to do. From the State 
of Illinois, we have had some of our best editorials on this subject, 
of which the Presiding Officer has been a supporter.
  From the Seattle Post, May 18, a few months ago this year, talking 
about CARA:

       It is a bold approach to environmental conservation and 
     restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the 
     squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of 
     Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to 
     be it.

  From the Providence Journal, RI, September 19:

       Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that this 
     measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days of an 
     election-year session. Citizens should press Congress to get 
     it on to the desk of President, who would sign it.

  While time is short, where there is a will there is a way, and the 
people of Rhode Island surely believe that.
  From the Los Angeles Times, September 18:

       This measure should be plucked from the pack and made law.

  Chicago Tribune, from the home State of the Presiding Officer:

       As Congress churns through its last days before 
     adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be 
     left in the dust, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or 
     CARA.

  The New York Times just last week:

       Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two 
     of the most important conservation bills in many years. One 
     bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee 
     $45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental 
     purposes, including wilderness protection.

  Again, from my own paper, the New Orleans Times Picayune, which a few 
months back, actually, in its frustration in trying to communicate our 
message, said:

       Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why 
     Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of 
     this environmental money generated by offshore revenues and 
     maybe that is because their states aren't disappearing.

  From the Tampa Tribune:

       The Conservation Reinvestment Act is a necessary and 
     sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its 
     natural heritage. It deserves Senate support.

  Finally, from the Detroit Free Press, one of our most supportive 
editorials, in June of this year:

       One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the 
     ability to focus on smaller projects than the Federal 
     Government normally would, including urban green spaces, 
     walkways, small slices of important habitat. For those with 
     visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of selective 
     preservation of natural spots in the path of development, 
     CARA is a dream come true--if the Senators controlling its 
     fate will set it free.

  I don't think CARA is going to get set free in the vote that we are 
going to have in just a few minutes, but that is the process. We will 
continue our fight. We will continue to talk about this important 
issue, and we will be organized and ready for next year.
  In addition, there are still days left in this session where CARA 
could be, or something more like it, set free so that we can begin and 
can continue some of the very important environmental work going on in 
the country.
  Let me say, not all of that environmental work takes place in 
Washington, D.C. Not all of that environmental work takes place among 
Federal agencies, although they have a role. A lot of this work takes 
place in our hometowns all across the Nation, with our Governors' 
offices, with our mayors and our county commissions, on ball fields and 
soccer fields, on cleanup days and Earth Days all over the Nation. That 
is the hope that CARA would bring that will be left on the table today.
  I will submit all of these for the Record in my closing remarks.
  In addition, let me make the point that some people have claimed that 
the CARA legislation was just helping coastal States. I will submit for 
the Record a wonderful editorial today from a place right in the middle 
of our Nation, the Kansas City Star, about the Conservation 
Reinvestment Act, realizing that time is short, but I want to read what 
they say from Kansas and Missouri:

       This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent 
     bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the 
     one approved by Congress.

  Let us try to unite and find the will to salvage what we can, and 
perhaps there is a possible way to do that.
  Let me read for the Record, as I begin closing, a letter to the 
editor of all the ones that were received, and there were literally 
hundreds written by many distinguished people from around our country, 
the one we received that just stood out above all the others was a 
wonderful letter written by Lady Bird Johnson and by the distinguished 
leader, Laurance Rockefeller, who is the uncle to our colleague from 
West Virginia whom we so admire and respect and for whom we have such 
affection. Laurance Rockefeller is 98 years old. I will read into the 
Record what Lady Bird and Laurence Rockefeller said about the actions 
we should be taking now:

       The 20th century can rightly be called America's 
     conservation century. From President Theodore Roosevelt 
     forward, Americans

[[Page 20885]]

     began to embrace their land rather than just use it. This 
     ethic of conservation has created, protected and preserved 
     tens of millions of acres of open space in America, 
     encompassing everything from national parks to neighborhood 
     soccer fields.
       But conservation is not something that concludes just 
     because a century does. We are not done, nor will we ever be. 
     While protecting our natural resources is often a quiet, 
     steady exercise, sometimes moments of great opportunity 
     arise. We are at such a moment now.

  They go on to write:

       The U.S. Senate has before it legislation that would do 
     more to protect America's heritage than anything in a 
     generation. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is in the 
     true spirit of the early conservationists: It plans for the 
     future while solving the immediate; it provides for 
     recreation as well as preservation; it ensures significant 
     state and local input and control; and it has bipartisan 
     support. The House has passed the bill and the Senate Energy 
     and Natural Resources Committee has approved it. With the 
     administration supporting the legislation, all that is needed 
     is Senate action in the remaining days of this Congress.
       CARA's origins stretch back to 1958, when President 
     Eisenhower created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 
     Commission to conduct a three-year inquiry into America's 
     growing outdoor needs. Its findings suggested a new approach: 
     Not only should the Federal Government step up its lagging 
     land acquisition program to round out our National Park 
     System, but it should also embark on a new venture to provide 
     matching funds that state and local governments could use to 
     meet a broader set of outdoor needs.
       In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law a bill 
     creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which not only 
     affirmed these commitments but set American conservation on a 
     course it still follows.
       The foresight embedded in LWCF--an emphasis on Federal/
     state/local partnerships, long-term planning, permanent 
     acquisition and urban recreation--was strengthened later in 
     the 1960s by tapping money from offshore oil and gas leases 
     to fund LWCF projects. The wisdom of doing so was strikingly 
     simple: Utilize the exploitation of one public natural 
     resource in order to protect and conserve another. Congress 
     had made a promise and found a way to keep it. And for years, 
     the LWCF worked wonders. More than 37,000 projects have been 
     sparked by the initiative, helping states and localities 
     acquire 2.3 million acres of parkland and adding 3.4 million 
     acres of new Federal lands to our national bounty. The LWCF 
     has funded open space in literally every county in America, 
     and is responsible for everything from helping preserve Civil 
     War battlefields to purchasing land for Rocky Mountain 
     National Park to building the baseball field down the street 
     from your house.
       After 15 years of generally faithful adherence to LWCF's 
     unique bargain, Presidential administrations and Congress 
     began to redirect large chunks of fund revenues from their 
     intended purposes to other budget items. Since 1980, more 
     than $11 billion has been diverted from these projects, 
     creating a staggering backlog of Federal, state and local 
     land protection needs.

  They continue and write:

       We urgently need to restore the promise. That's what CARA 
     will do. CARA represents the first good opportunity in 20 
     years to set our conservation path back on track. It not only 
     fully funds the LWCF, but also addresses critical needs in 
     wildlife management, urban parks, coastal protection--

  Which is so important to my State and to many of our States, 
particularly Mississippi, Alabama, and all along the east and west 
coasts--

     and historic preservation. Most important, it establishes a 
     dependable source of funding for these programs. The 
     prescience of those who created the fund was that 
     conservation especially could not be a haphazard thing; 
     population growth, the inexorable march of development and 
     simple wear and tear on resources require a permanent 
     commitment. CARA returns us to that premise, providing 
     approximately $3 billion a year and a firm precedent for 
     future funding.
       CARA returns us to another important ideal: bipartisanship.

  Sometimes that is in too short supply here in Washington.

       Republican Don Young of Alaska and Democrat George Miller 
     of California did a masterful job of steering CARA through 
     the House, winning a 315-102 vote. In the Senate, Republican 
     Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New 
     Mexico brought the bill out of committee with support from 
     Senators of both parties. In these gridlocked times, CARA's 
     bipartisan treatment is a reminder that policy can sometimes 
     overcome politics.

  They conclude by saying:

       We hope the full Senate will heed that reminder and act on 
     CARA now.

  We have worked as partners on conservation issues for almost four 
decades. Our hope has always been that American leaders would act so 
that their children--all children--would have something to look forward 
to. By reviving the Land and Water Conservation Fund before Congress 
goes home this year, it can provide just that.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us does not do what this vision 
outlined. It does do many good things, but it falls short of this 
vision. In the last 10 minutes that I have, I want to finalize my 
comments by making just a few more points and submit a letter for the 
Record.
  According to the Webster's Dictionary, ``legacy'' means something 
handed down from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past, or to 
bequeath.
  For more than 3 years, many in this body, dozens of Members of the 
House of Representatives, hundreds of mayors and Governors, thousands 
of environmentalists and wildlife groups, and millions of Americans 
have been calling for a true environmental legacy.
  Those of my colleagues who will, in a few minutes, support the 
Interior appropriations conference report will do so for many good 
reasons. My great friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, spoke eloquently 
yesterday about the money in this bill to fight the wild fires raging 
across the western plains. That is a very good reason to support this 
bill.
  As the temperature gets ready to dip across America this winter, 
there is great need for a home heating oil reserve, and that is in this 
bill. That is a very good reason to support it.
  In my State of Louisiana, the Cat Island Refuge, which is the oldest 
cypress forest in North America--and it may be the only one left--gets 
money in this bill. The New Orleans Jazz Commission and the Cane River 
National Heritage Area, the oldest settlement in the Louisiana 
Purchase, are reasons to support this bill.
  However, if anyone here is looking for a true legacy, a long-term 
commitment to our vanishing coastlines, our disappearing wildlife, and 
our crumbling parks and historic treasures, you will not find that in 
this bill.
  The true legacy would have been the Conservation Reinvestment Act--a 
bill which has bipartisan support by a vast majority of the Congress 
and support from the President of the United States. However, today we 
will be asked to vote on what really amounts to sort of a CARA 
cardboard cutout--one that kind of looks like the real thing, but it is 
really flimsy and hollow, one which fails to deliver the great promise 
that we had at this opportunity for our children and our grandchildren.
  For 3 years, a monumental and historic coalition built around this 
bill and congressional leaders designed it in a way to merit support 
across the aisle and across the Nation.
  Early on, some environmentalists charged it was a pro-drilling bill. 
So we clarified the language to make sure it was drilling neutral to 
gather their support.
  I think--and there are some of my colleagues on the floor who can 
attest to this--that perhaps we failed to go as far as we should have. 
But I believe we made great strides in meeting the concerns of some of 
those who claimed that this bill would have compromised private 
property rights and would have allowed the Federal Government to buy up 
land without willing seller provisions and congressional approval.
  We worked mightily to meet those objectives, and we believe the 
compromise that we came up with was fair and good along these lines.
  I know for the past few years I have cajoled, bargained, and spoken 
to so many of my friends and colleagues to listen to the merits of this 
proposal. I am sure on more than one occasion when they saw me coming, 
they ran the other way. But I believe this is so important that we 
should take this step now.
  When I am asked how we can afford to do this, my answer is simple: 
How can we afford not to?
  Since 1930, Louisiana has lost more than 1,500 square miles of marsh. 
The State loses between 25 and 30 miles each year--nearly a football 
field of wetlands every 30 minutes in my State.
  By 2050, we will lose more than 600 square miles of marsh and almost 
400 square miles of swamp.

[[Page 20886]]

  That means the Nation will lose an area of coastal wetlands about the 
size of Rhode Island--about the size of your State, Mr. President. We 
are about ready to lose it.
  In the past 100 years, as so eloquently spoken about yesterday by our 
colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, southern Florida's 
Everglades have been reduced to one-fifth their former size.
  In the past 30 years, the population of blue crabs in the Chesapeake 
Bay has been barely hanging on, much to the dismay, I know, of Senator 
Mikulski and Senator Sarbanes, who fight vigorously for renewal in the 
Chesapeake.
  In the middle of this century, a boater could look down into Lake 
Tahoe's depths and see 100 feet. Today that is more like 60, or 70, and 
dropping every day. Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer know that CARA 
could be one of the answers--not the only answer but truly one of the 
answers to help.
  These facts are staggering. More importantly, it will take decades to 
turn it around.
  So let's begin now.
  I ask each of my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of our 
Governors, our mayors, and our natural resource officials. All of these 
local officials are charged just as we are with developing long-range 
strategies to combat vanishing coastlines, disappearing wildlife, and 
crumbling treasures. But if we don't enact CARA, or something very 
close to it, a funding stream they can count on year in and year out, 
their efforts will be marginalized.
  The Gulf of Mexico does not wait for congressional approval to claim 
30 square miles of Louisiana every year. Hurricanes do not lobby 
congressional appropriators before they claim precious beaches in 
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the eastern seaboard. Mother nature 
does not testify in front of Congress before she floods our parks, eats 
away at the Everglades, and takes her toll on our historic treasures.
  Let us look closely at what we are doing here today. I ask that we 
not be lulled into believing that this is anything more than a minor 
downpayment on a debt we owe to our children.
  In the past 2 years, I think we have made much progress in 
recognizing the contribution of the coastal States--particularly States 
such as Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--which generate 
these offshore revenues in the first place.
  Because I have received assurances from both leaders, Senator Lott of 
Mississippi, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota, that both coastal 
impact assistance and wildlife protection can be addressed in other 
bills in this Congress, I have withdrawn my objections to final passage 
of this bill.
  Although CARA supporters will lose the vote today, we will grow 
stronger. We will come back energized and ready to fight for what our 
country really needs--a true environmental legacy. The coalition knows 
that this is a downpayment. And, like all who are owed a debt, we will 
come to collect.
  Winston Churchill once said:

       Want of foresight . . . unwillingness to act when action 
     would be simple and effective . . . lack of clear thinking, 
     confusion of counsel until the emergency comes . . . until 
     self-preservation strikes its jarring gong . . . these are 
     features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

  Colleagues, let us heed these words. Let us come next year prepared 
with a willingness to act. Let us think clearly before the emergencies 
come. Let us not wait until our environmental preservation hangs in the 
balance. And let us listen to the cause of the American people--people 
from my State, people from your State, people from all of our States 
who say they need something on which they can depend--a steady stream 
of revenue; a partnership that they can depend on to help preserve what 
is best about America while protecting private property rights, while 
protecting the great balance between land ownership and land 
maintenance, while protecting the great needs of our coastline and our 
interior.
  We need a bill that America can grow on and depend on and prosper 
from in the decades ahead.
  I thank again the appropriators for their hard work. I thank the 
authorizers for their tremendous vision.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of wonderful people who need to be thanked for their efforts 
and, in doing so, not conceding that there is not still some time left 
to make some corrections and improvements but recognizing that the time 
is short and we will continue to pursue this avenue. But this is a list 
of coalition members from the National Wildlife Federation; Sporting 
Goods Manufacturers Association; National Governors' Association; the 
Nature Conservancy; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; 
Americans for our Heritage and Recreation; International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies that worked so hard on this effort; U.S. 
Soccer Foundation; National Wildlife Federation; Coastal Conservation 
Association; Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America; Trust for Public 
Lands; Coastal States Organization, which Jack Caldwell helped to head 
up; National Coalition of State Historic Preservation Officers, 
particularly the Governor of Oregon who was so helpful, and many other 
Governors; the Wilderness Society; Southern Governors Association; my 
Governor, Governor Foster, who lent a hand early on; Land Trust 
Alliance; and the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
  Those are just a few. There are so many more and I know my time is 
probably up.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names 
of many of the staff people who helped make this possible.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         CARA Coalition Members

     Mark Van Putten, Jodi Applegate, Jim Lyon, Steve Schimburg--
         National Wildlife Federation
     Sandy Briggs--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
     Jena Carter, Diane Shays--National Governor's Association
     Tom Cassidy, Jody Thomas, David Weiman--The Nature 
         Conservancy
     Sidney Coffee--Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
     Tom Cove--Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
     Jane Danowitz--Americans for our Heritage and Recreation
     Glenn Delaney, Naomi Edelson, Max Peterson--International 
         Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
     Jim Range--International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
         Agencies/The American Airgun Field Target Association
     Gary Taylor--International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
         Agencies
     Herb Giobbi--U.S. Soccer Foundation
     Pam Goddard--National Wildlife Federation
     Bob Hayes--Coastal Conservation Association
     Myrna Johnson--Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America
     Lesly Kane--Trust for Public Land
     Tony MacDonald--Coastal States Organization
     Nancy Miller--National Coalition of State Historic 
         Preservation Officers
     Andrew Minkiewicz, Kevin Smith--Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon
     Rindy O'Brien--The Wilderness Society
     Beth Osborne--Southern Governor's Association
     Bob Szabo--Van Ness--Feldman Law Firm
     Russell Shay--Land Trust Alliance
     Mark Davis--Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana

                 Actively Supportive Members and Staffs

     Senator Thomas Daschle--Mark Childress, Eric Washburn
     Senator Trent Lott--Jim Ziglar
     Senator Bingaman--Minority Energy Committee Staff: Bob Simon, 
         Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Mark Katherine Ishee, Kyra 
         Finkler
     Senator Murkowski--Majority Energy Committee Staff: Andrew 
         Lundquist, Kelly Johnson
     Senator Mike DeWine--Paul Palagyi
     Senator John Breaux--Fred Hatfield, Stephanie Leger, Mallory 
         Moore
     Senator Max Baucus--Brian Kuehl, Norma Jane Sabiston, Jason 
         Schendle, Aylin Azikalin, Alyson Azodeh
       All democratic colleagues on Energy Committee and Senator 
     Fitzgerald.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I end by saying that sometimes it takes 
a bold act to receive something on which we can really build. CARA is a 
bold act.
  In a bill with $15 billion, asking for a few hundred million for 
States and local governments, a few hundred million for our coastal 
communities, a few hundred million for wildlife, was not too much to 
ask. I am very hopeful in

[[Page 20887]]

the years ahead we can meet the promise of CARA.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed excerpts of editorial 
support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Why CARA? Why Now?


Excerpts of Editorial Support for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act

       ``It's a bold approach to environmental conservation and 
     restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the 
     squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of 
     Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to 
     be it.'' Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 18, 2000.
       ``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act has the magic to 
     get through Congress in an election year: money for lots of 
     states, creative compromises and an odd-couple pair of 
     sponsors from the right and left.''--Seattle Times, May 9, 
     2000.
       ``Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that 
     this measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days 
     of an election- year session. Citizens should press Congress 
     to get it onto the desk of President Clinton, who should sign 
     it.''--Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, September 19, 2000.
       ``This measure should be plucked from the pack and made 
     law.''--Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2000.
       ``By passing the act, the Senate will demonstrate that in 
     the current prosperity, America is not forgetting its other 
     riches, those bestowed on it by nature.''--San Jose Mercury 
     News, September 17, 2000.
       ``As Congress churns though its last days before 
     adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be 
     left in the dust: the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or 
     CARA.''--Chicago Tribune, September 16, 2000.
       ``Before adjourning next month, Congress should approve two 
     of the most important conservation bills in many years. One 
     bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, would guarantee 
     $45 billion over 15 years for a range of environmental 
     purposes, including wilderness protection.''--The New York 
     Times, September 13, 2000.
       ``One of the most important and comprehensive pieces of 
     conservation legislation in U.S. history deserves immediate 
     passage by the Senate. It is a bill most Americans have never 
     heard of: The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA.''--
     St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 11, 2000.
       ``This is a rare piece of legislation. Its purpose is clear 
     and simple. Its funding is ready. Its public benefit would be 
     immense, and so would its public support, if anyone could 
     hear about it through the blare of electioneering. All it 
     needs is attention by our senators in the next three 
     weeks.''--San Diego Union-Tribune, September 7, 2000.
       ``Senators from inland states don't seem to understand why 
     Louisiana and other coastal states should receive the bulk of 
     the environmental money generated by offshore oil revenues. 
     And maybe that's because their states aren't 
     disappearing.''--The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune, July 18, 
     2000.
       ``Back in the '60s, Congress set aside $900 million yearly 
     from offshore oil revenue for the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund to finance purchases of important natural beauty spots. 
     But over the years Congress routinely robbed the fund to 
     spend the money elsewhere, and Iowa was routinely shut out 
     when the remainder was divided. CARA restores the fund and 
     adds much more.''--The Des Moines Register, July 8, 2000.
       ``This landmark legislation deserves a chance, and it will 
     be a shame if opponents manage to use the clock or 
     unreasonable arguments to kill it. While senators out West 
     worry about the federal government gaining more control over 
     land, those of us who live in Louisiana worry about the acres 
     of coast that are crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico. One fear 
     is speculation, the other is all too real.''--The (New 
     Orleans) Times-Picayune, September 19, 2000.
       ``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a necessary and 
     sensible measure that would allow our nation to safeguard its 
     natural heritage. It deserves the Senate's support.''--The 
     Tampa Tribune, July 7, 2000.
       ``CARA is considered to be the most significant 
     conservation funding legislation any Congress has ever 
     considered.''--Times Daily (Florence, Alabama), July 10, 
     2000.
       ``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a strong and 
     balanced realization of the philosophy that government 
     revenues generated by exploiting natural resources ought to 
     be spent, in large part, on protecting resources elsewhere. 
     That's philosophy that Congress has long honored on paper, 
     and should now put into practice.''--The (Minneapolis) Star 
     Tribune, July 3, 2000.
       ``One of CARA's most exciting aspects, in fact, is the 
     ability to focus on smaller projects than the federal 
     government normally would, including urban green spaces, 
     walkways and small slices of important habitat. For those 
     with visions of a walkable riverfront in Detroit, of 
     selective preservation of natural spots in the path of 
     development, CARA is a dream come true--if the senators 
     controlling its fate will set it free.''--Detroit Free Press, 
     June 27, 2000.
       ``The most important land conservation bill in many years 
     is now before the United States Senate, and time is running 
     out.''--The New York Times, June 27, 2000.
       ``It's a reasonable, bipartisan way for America to create 
     long-term funding for conserving our natural heritage.''--The 
     (Salem, Oregon) Statesman Journal, June 14, 2000.
       ``CARA is a good program that promotes local initiative 
     toward parks, resource conservation and historic 
     preservation. We hope our senators change their positions and 
     give the support it deserves.''--The Idaho Statesman, June 
     13, 2000.
       ``We need to make it clear that we, the American people, 
     want the Senate to pass the most significant wildlife, parks 
     and recreation legislation in over 30 years.''--The Pueblo 
     (Colorado) Chieftain, June 11, 2000.
       ``This is a quality-of-life bill for the future, one that 
     holds enormous promise for the protection of dwindling 
     natural and cultural resources. Passage means benefits for 
     the current generation of Americans, and a chance to continue 
     those gains for generations yet to come.''--The Buffalo (New 
     York) News, May 22, 2000.
       ``So long as good sense continues to prevail, this 
     legislation may signal the beginning of an era, none too 
     soon, in which environmental impact has a more prominent seat 
     at the table.''--Winston-Salem Journal, May 19, 2000.
                                  ____


               [From the Kansas City Star, Oct. 5, 2000]

                           Conservation Money

       The proposed Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would 
     transfer millions of dollars from federal off-shore oil 
     leases to financially starved local and state parks and 
     wildlife programs, is in trouble.
       Thanks to a deal devised by congressional negotiators on 
     the Interior Department appropriations bill, the House has 
     approved a pale version of the landmark legislation that 
     earlier had been endorsed by two-thirds of the House, more 
     than half of the Senate and President Clinton.
       The President has endorsed this inferior agreement, saying 
     that ``while we had hoped for even more'' he wanted to praise 
     the conservation, wildlife and recreation groups, as well as 
     citizens, who worked so hard for the conservation act.
       This is not the time to give up. Despite the apparent 
     bipartisan agreement, this latest version of the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act, also known as CARA, should not be the 
     one approved by Congress. It falls far short of the original 
     that has been pushed by conservation groups, cities, counties 
     and states.
       Under a strong bipartisan effort, Congress has been on the 
     verge of restoring the money to its rightful uses. Of the $3 
     billion CARA would provide, Missouri annually stands to gain 
     $34.7 million and Kansas $17.3 million for natural resource 
     preservation and parkland acquisition. Kansas and Missouri 
     cities and counties could use their share of the money to 
     improve state and local parks, purchase land for parks, and 
     other recreational purposes.
       The substitute version falls short in the money it would 
     guarantee over the long term. In one example, $350 million 
     annually for nongame wildlife programs has been cut to $50 
     million.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom 
     Daschle have announced their intention to push to restore 
     CARA to its former self. They are backed by the nation's 
     governors, who have sought significant conservation funding 
     for state needs. The original version is the one that should 
     be passed.
       Approval of CARA could be one of the most significant 
     victories of this Congress.

  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to take the remaining time of the 
Senator from Arizona, which I believe is 4 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator allow me to use 5 minutes 
of my time as the ranking member on the subcommittee?
  Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I trust that the distinguished Senator will not leave the 
floor. I hope he will follow me immediately. If he is in great haste, I 
will be glad to yield to him.
  Mr. THOMAS. Go right ahead.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the short time available before the 
Senate votes on final passage of the Interior appropriations conference 
report, I want to again urge my colleagues to support this measure. It 
is a good compromise that balances the needs of our parks, our forests, 
our wildlife refuges, and our trust responsibilities to American 
Indians, against the resources made available to us. That task--the 
task of reconciling identified needs with limited resources--is not 
easy.
  I am particularly pleased with the level of funding in this bill for 
fossil energy research. The new power plant improvement initiative, 
along with the other fossil energy research programs in the Department 
of Energy, are critical to this nation's energy security.

[[Page 20888]]

Working to curtail our reliance on imported oil, and ensuring that our 
current fleet of power plants are efficient and environmentally sound, 
should be the cornerstone of the next administration's energy policy. I 
can assure the next president, whomever he may be, that I, for one, am 
ready to assist in that endeavor.
  Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment to thank the chairman of 
the full committee, Senator Ted Stevens, for his interest in this bill, 
for his continued support, and for his willingness to work with Senator 
Gorton and me to ensure that we were able to get to this point. In 
particular, I am grateful for his help in making additional resources 
available to the Interior subcommittee. Without those resources, we 
could not have crafted this bill.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me again thank my colleague, the 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton. He and his staff have truly been 
a pleasure to work with.
  When I talk of staff, let me briefly mention my own staff person, 
Peter Kiefhaber. I believe this is his first bill, first major bill, to 
assist me on this floor throughout the markup, throughout the hearings. 
He has done a masterful job as a new person in that position. I thank 
him and I congratulate him.
  I yield the floor now. I yield my remaining time to Senator Gorton.
  I, again, thank the distinguished Senator for yielding when he had 
the floor, to allow me to make this brief statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask to take the 4 minutes that was available to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the opportunity to visit just a moment on a 
subject that is very close to my heart and very close to my interests. 
I am from Wyoming, a State that has open space throughout a great deal 
of the State. It is the eighth largest State in the United States and 
still the smallest population. I grew up near Yellowstone Park. Those 
are things I feel very strongly about.
  I want to do two things--one, to comment on the good proposal of the 
Senator from Louisiana and her passionate defense of it. I understand 
that. I respect that a great deal. There are some things that are 
disadvantageous about CARA that we have talked about. One, of course, 
is the idea it makes it mandatory spending for 15 years. This is an 
entitlement. As we look at our budget now, about a third of our budget 
is up to the Congress to allocate. The rest of it is entitlements.
  I came from serving in the Wyoming Legislature where the legislature 
now only has control over 25 percent of the dollars. I think that is a 
dangerous position, and entitlements become a real problem.
  Also, as we look toward the land acquisition, there are a number of 
things we need to be concerned about in this year's budget. From this 
administration, there was more interest on the purchase plan than the 
maintenance plan. We have 379 parks in this country, most of which are 
in desperate need of infrastructure help, but it seems as if the more 
popular thing to talk about is the acquisition of more land. Fifty 
percent of my State belongs to the Federal Government; 85 percent of 
Nevada in the west along the Rocky Mountain area, most of the land now 
belongs to the Federal Government.
  We asked in committee if we could have some kind of protection in 
this allocation of CARA of $45 billion, that we would not have any more 
Federal land; that, indeed, if Federal lands were to be purchased, we 
would have an opportunity to dispose of some Federal land so there 
would be basically no net gain. It seems to me that is reasonable. The 
supporters of CARA were not willing to talk about that.
  In conclusion, I think there is a great deal of merit in the bill 
before the Senate. It isn't, of course, what everyone wants. There are 
more expenditures to it than some like. It does reflect help however, 
for the losses that were incurred because of the forest fires--6.6 
million acres in the West burned this year and the costs associated and 
the losses associated there.
  I am going to support this bill. I am pleased. I thank the chairman 
for his good work in getting this bill before the Senate.
  I will comment on the fact that not only in this bill but in a number 
of bills there are authorizations for things I think are 
inappropriately authorized in appropriations bills. In this bill there 
are some parks, for example, and set-asides which certainly ought to 
come from the authorizing committee, not from the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I understand what happens. We get toward the end of the year, and 
there are things there, people want something to happen and we are in 
danger of having a lot of that happen in the next week or so. I hope it 
does not. We have a system where there is an authorization and there is 
an appropriation.
  I don't think anyone in this place is more anxious to have dollars 
available to do something with conservation, to do something with 
preservation, to do something with easements, to do something with 
maintenance of the land we already have, but I think we have to make 
sure those bills, indeed, have the composition that makes them the 
kinds of things that we need to have in this Congress and that is to 
have them authorized yearly or at least in shorter spans than 15 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I make some general remarks, I will 
respond to the three--and I think there have only been three--critics 
of this bill.
  For the better part of 3 days, the Senate has indulged in the remarks 
of the Senator from Illinois over one item out of many hundreds in this 
bill. Normally speaking, items such as the Lincoln Library are included 
in bills such as this because the Senators from the States concerned 
believe they are important and because we believe they are reasonable 
national priorities. I think I can assure the Senator from Illinois and 
the body that, had I known we were going to go through this process, 
there would have been no money for this project in this bill at all. It 
may very well be there will be no more tomorrow.
  I do think a library for Abraham Lincoln's papers in Springfield, IL, 
is an appropriate project. The State of Illinois and various local 
entities and individuals are providing the great majority of the money 
that is going into that project. The Senator from Illinois has engaged 
in a filibuster, required the vote of 89-8 on cloture, all over the 
bidding practices with respect to the way in which that project is 
undertaken, as to whether or not they ought to be Federal bidding 
practices or the State of Illinois' bidding practices--bidding 
practices of the State of Illinois that I believe he had something to 
do with creating while he was a member of the legislature of that body.
  Even under the bill as it appears here, the Secretary of the Interior 
has the authority to review the design, method of acquisition, and the 
estimated cost, and can deal with anything that the Secretary believes 
to be untoward in this entire question. But I have to say that to spend 
3 days of the time of the Senate on this internal dispute involving 
Members of Congress and others from the State of Illinois was an 
imposition on the time of the Senate at any time, but especially when 
the Senate is attempting to finish many important bills of which this 
is one, but only one. We will go forward with it at this point. We will 
pass the bill at this point. I believe the President of the United 
States will sign it at this point. But I can certainly not remember any 
other instance in which a Member from a State that is getting a benefit 
from the bill has looked so carefully at the teeth of a gift horse.
  The second question I raise is about some of the criticisms from my 
good friend, the Senator from Arizona. He complains about money in this 
bill for carriage barn rehabilitation at the Longfellow National 
Historic Site. That is a national park site. That is

[[Page 20889]]

the very kind of thing that we must rehabilitate. Henry Wadsworth 
Longfellow, when he lived at his place, had a carriage barn. I don't 
know whether the Senator from Arizona feels we should let it fall down, 
but my own view is our first duty is to maintain the national park 
sites that we have at the present time. The Senator from Wyoming has 
just referred to that. How that constitutes pork, or a reason to vote 
against this bill, is, I must say, beyond my understanding.
  He complains about dollars for the southeast Alaska disaster fund 
that he claims were not included in either the House or the Senate 
bill. In fact, they were included in the Senate bill under a different 
account number.
  He complains about $30 million for site-specific earmarks or 
emergency funds, one quarter of which turn out to be--slightly more 
than one quarter--for hazardous fuels reduction activities carried on 
by Northern Arizona University.
  When I was on the floor, he was complaining about the rehabilitation 
of a fish hatchery in White Sulfur Springs, WV, which was requested by 
my good friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Again, I 
am puzzled why it is we should not provide such office rehabilitation 
at a site that is a specific function of the people of the United 
States.
  In other words, I don't find those criticisms to have any particular 
merit whatsoever. This is our business. It is the business of this bill 
to see to it that the lands and historic sites and facilities of the 
United States of America are properly maintained. I think one of the 
great shortcomings, one of the overwhelming shortcomings that we have 
had in the last few years is that we have not been maintaining these 
sites to the extent they ought to be maintained. One of the goals, 
which I have accomplished in this bill, is to increase the amount of 
money for that maintenance, both in the regular bill and in this 
supplement to this bill that is the third item of controversy here 
today.
  This bill is criticized by the Senator from Louisiana as not 
including the full authorization for the so-called CARA bill, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. She is certainly correct; it does 
not. That bill is an almost $3-billion-a-year entitlement for some 15 
years, the net result of which is that the items included in it are 
deemed to be more important, should that bill pass the Congress of the 
United States, than saving the Social Security system, than education, 
than health care, or any of the other items for which we appropriate 
every year. In my view, it is utterly inappropriate as an entitlement 
that automatically comes off the top, before all the other priorities 
of the people of the United States.
  On the other hand, many of the items preferred in that CARA 
legislation are highly worthy items, items for which this subcommittee 
chairman is delighted to have what now amounts to a greater 
authorization. Many of them will be more liberally funded in the future 
as a result of the proposals that are a part of this bill now.
  It is said--it was said in that criticism--that this bill sends all 
the money through the Federal bureaucracy rather than CARA sending it 
directly to the States. First, it doesn't send all the money through 
the Federal bureaucracy. Many of these programs are existing programs 
that result in formula grants to the States, and others are competitive 
grants to the States. At this point, the Congress can, through its 
authorizing committees, change the distribution formula for any one of 
these programs, either to make them more direct or more focused. CARA, 
of course, doesn't send all its money directly to the States, either. 
It does include large amounts for payment to coastal States but they 
are for new programs which are not even authorized at this point and 
will not be unless some bill of that nature is passed.
  Second, this is criticized by some conservatives for not providing 
protections for private property. The Interior bill funds currently 
authorized programs. It doesn't authorize them; it funds currently 
authorized programs and therefore, by definition, includes every 
protection for private property that exists in any one of those 
authorizing laws. If there are shortcomings in this field, it is not 
the fault of the Appropriations Committee but of the very authorizing 
committee that presented CARA to us in the first place.
  For Federal land acquisitions that are funded by this CARA-lite, in 
future years everyone is going to be subject to the same process as is 
used at the present time. They are all going to go through 
appropriations committees. I can assure my colleagues, I cannot think 
of a case where this committee has approved a project that did not have 
the support of the relevant Members of Congress, except maybe for this 
one in Illinois, which has been the subject of debate for some 3 days. 
So that objection is simply not valid.
  It is also pointed out this bill does not provide States and local 
governments with a predictable funding stream. You bet your life it 
does not, and it was not so designed. Why should we give a predictable 
funding stream for grant programs to State and local governments in 
precedence to the very programs for which we are directly responsible? 
We do not have a fully predictable or legally enforceable funding 
stream for schools. We don't have it for most of our health care 
programs. We don't have it for research and development programs. We 
don't have it for a wide variety of the programs that are subject to 
debate every year. It is just for that reason that we do not have it. 
They should be subject to debate and revision with respect to 
priorities every year. That is why we have a Congress.
  On the other hand, this new title does provide a decidedly increased 
likelihood that these grant programs will be sustained and will 
increase in future years.
  What this bill does is to say that if you do not spend this money on 
the programs outlined in this bill, you cannot spend it on something 
else, but it will go to reducing the national debt. It is only a couple 
months. Members on both sides of the aisle vociferously were saying 
that a reduction of the national debt was the most important single 
economic activity in which we could engage. Chairman Greenspan was 
quoted constantly on the floor of the Senate. We forgot that when some 
decided we needed these ``predictable funding streams,'' that is to 
say, entitlements which come directly out of debt reduction.
  I have never been able to see the logic of a 15-year guaranteed 
funding stream that could not easily be adjusted if the programs were 
ineffective or if we went into economic times in which there were 
higher priorities.
  Those are some of the critiques of the particular proposal, 
additional portions of which are likely to be included in the 
appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice, particularly the oceans 
portions of it which will be debated later.
  Finally, Senator Graham from Florida criticized the bill for not 
providing adequate funds for national parks. While CARA would have 
guaranteed an extra $100 million per year for the National Park 
Service--Mr. President, I am allowed to take time from Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. The answer is, of course, CARA did not either. CARA gave 
money to the National Park Service above the line but not below the 
line, and very likely future Congresses will simply reduce the 
discretionary portion of that account by the amount guaranteed in CARA 
itself.
  It was at my insistence that this CARA-lite does include an item, I 
believe $150 million a year, for national park maintenance. I think 
that is one of the most important elements of the bill itself.
  The vote on cloture indicated the broad support for this bill, as did 
the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. For 
that overwhelming bipartisan support, I owe particular thanks to 
Senator Byrd for helping me in developing the conference agreement and 
shaping it in a way that merits the support of Members on both sides of 
the aisle. His new staff minority clerk, Peter Kiefhaber,

[[Page 20890]]

has been a tremendous asset during the course of his first year. He has 
been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff and Scott 
Dalzell, who has been with us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
  I thank my own exemplary staff: Bruce Evans, who is sitting here with 
me, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Christine Drager, and Joe Norrell, as 
well as our detailee, Sheila Sweeney, and Kari Vander Stoep of my 
personal staff. All have also worked so many hours on this bill that I 
do not dare count them for fear of feeling ashamed. They have worked 
extremely hard, but they have been successful and have every reason to 
be gratified with their work.
  I note for the record this is the last year in which I will be 
privileged to work with my counterpart chairman, Congressman Ralph 
Regula from the House of Representatives. He will have another 
subcommittee next year, and I tell you, I will miss him. I have never 
dealt with anyone in this body or in the other body with whom I have 
had a more positive and affirmative, constructive working relationship, 
often with a great many laughs because of his marvelous sense of humor. 
Ralph Regula will have left a substantial legacy of increased priority 
for the maintenance of our Federal lands and facilities and a great 
approach in a matter of principle.
  In summary, this is a popular bill that has every right to be popular 
because it meets with many of the needs of deferred maintenance for 
past neglect. It has many projects in it that are of great importance 
to Members on both sides of the partisan divide in this body and our 
significant national priorities as well, and will get us through 
another year with respect not just to these natural resources used in 
energy research and cultural institutions in the United States but in a 
way I think worthy and which I recommend heartily to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Breaux
     Brownback
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Feinstein
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

                          ____________________