[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13144-13168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2217, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 880, to make a technical correction.
       Nelson of Florida amendment No. 893, to prohibit the use of 
     funds to execute a final lease agreement for oil and gas 
     development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as 
     ``Lease Sale 181.''


                           Amendment No. 893

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Nelson amendment 
No. 893.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I 
say to Senator Graham, if he would like some time of the 2 minutes for 
closing, I will certainly yield to him.
  Madam President, yesterday we had the Durbin amendment, and it was 
not tabled by a vote of 57-42. It was on the issue of oil drilling in 
national monuments, national treasures.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the beaches of Florida are 
national treasures to us because of the importance of the beaches to 
our economy. If there is an oilspill, and a slick comes in on one of 
our beaches, it will shut down a beach, such as Clearwater Beach, for 
years and years. In an economy with a $50 billion tourism industry, in 
the Nation's fourth largest State, that is simply not worth the risk to 
us in Florida.
  For the first time, the eastern planning area of the gulf, which 
heretofore has not been drilled, save for one test drill up here, is 
being invaded by this offering for lease of 1.5 million acres coming 
across the line. It is inevitable, in the march eastward, it would go 
straight toward Tampa Bay.
  This is a matter of national treasure to us. You all honored that 
yesterday in adopting the Durbin amendment, by not allowing drilling in 
the areas of national monuments. Senator Graham and I ask that you join 
with us today in helping us preserve our national treasure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to oppose this amendment and 
urge my colleagues to join with Senator Breaux, myself, and others--a 
bipartisan group--in opposing this amendment.
  We have a problem in this Nation. Our demand for energy is too high 
and our supply is not great enough. We use 30 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. We only have 25 trillion cubic feet. We think the Gulf of 
Mexico, in places far from the shores of Florida, has an ample supply 
of natural gas.
  Let us not move in the wrong direction. Our country needs us to 
respond in a positive way. This is not a new area. It is rich with 
natural gas. It was a compromise reached by a Democratic administration 
with many environmental organizations and with the industry. It is 
moderate.
  If you are for rolling blackouts and high prices, vote with Senator 
Nelson. If you are for reasonable energy policy, vote with me when I 
move, on behalf of Senator Breaux, to table this amendment.
  I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
  I bring to the attention of my colleagues, lease sale 181 was 
proposed by President Bill Clinton. It was this entire tract of area 
that I show you on this map. Democratic President Bill Clinton proposed 
it. The Democratic Governor of Florida at the time was Governor Lawton 
Chiles, our former

[[Page 13145]]

colleague. He agreed to lease sale 181 because he took into 
consideration where it was located. They signed off on it.
  In addition to that, the Democratic energy bill offered by our 
chairman, Jeff Bingaman, calls for going forward with lease sale 181. 
The potential natural gas in this lease sale, which has now been 
reduced in size by 75 percent, could supply 7 years' worth of natural 
gas to the State of Florida.
  I ask, if we can't drill for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of 
Mexico, where in the world are we going to find it?
  I think we should table the Nelson amendment. It is bad energy 
policy. It is not appropriate to undermine the carefully balanced 
proposal by President Clinton and also now by President Bush. We should 
table the amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 893.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--33

     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that we 
automatically go to the Interior bill, is that right, for the purpose 
of further debate and amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Oregon has an amendment he wishes to 
offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 899

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The pending amendment will be set 
aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith of Oregon] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 899.

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

(Purpose: To direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take certain 
  actions for the recovery of the lost river sucker and the shortnose 
sucker, and to clarify the operations of the Klamath Project in Oregon 
                and California, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       ``None of the funds made available under this or any other 
     Act may be used to provide any flows from the Klamath Project 
     other than those set forth in the 1992 biological opinion for 
     Lost River and shortnose suckers and the July 1999 biological 
     opinion on project operations issued by the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, until the Fish and Wildlife Service takes 
     the following actions identified or discussed in the April 
     1993 recovery plan for Lost River suckers and shortnose 
     suckers:
       (a) establishes at least one stable refugial population 
     with a minimum of 500 adult fish for each unique stock of 
     Lost River and shortnose suckers;
       (b) secures refugial sites for upper Klamath Lake suckers:
       (c) uses aeration for improving water quality and to expand 
     refugial areas of relatively good water quality within Upper 
     Klamath Lake;
       (d) improves larval rearing and refuge habitat in the lower 
     Williamson and Wood Rivers through increased vegetative 
     cover;
       (e) extirpates exotic species that are predators of the 
     suckers:
       (f) assesses the need for captive propagation and the 
     potential for improving sucker stocks through 
     supplementation, and the Secretary has submitted a report, 
     including recommendations, to the Congress;
       (g) implements a plan to monitor relative abundance of all 
     life stages for all sucker populations;
       (h) develops a plan to reduce losses of fish due to water 
     diversions;
       (i) determines the distribution and abundance of suckers in 
     all waterbodies in the Upper Klamath Basin;
       (j) implements the plan for wetland rehabilitation pilot 
     projects;
       (k) implements the most effective strategy to provide fish 
     passage upstream of the Sprague River Dam;
       (l) implements the plan to enhance spring spawning habitat 
     in Upper Klamath Lake and Agency Lake;
       and develops water management plans and land management 
     plans, including sump rotations where appropriate, for the 
     national wildlife refuges that receive water from the Klamath 
     Project; and subsequently completes an evaluation of the 
     impact of these actions on the recovery of the suckers before 
     determining whether further modifications to project 
     operations are needed and submits such evaluation to the 
     Secretary of the Interior and to the Congress.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, many Americans are becoming 
familiar with a part of my State and a part of California known as the 
Klamath Basin because of the coverage of a tragic situation that has 
developed there in a contest between suckerfish and farmers. If I may 
be permitted, I will put some context to this conflict.
  I am the first Senator to be elected from Oregon who comes from its 
rural parts--eastern Oregon--in 70 years. I represent all of my State, 
but I have a special passion to represent those rural parts that I have 
watched be devastated for too long by Federal action. I believe the 
Endangered Species Act is a noble act with noble purposes, but I 
believe it is being used by some to very ignoble ends.
  My actions today are not to subvert the Endangered Species Act. This 
is not reform. This is an act asking that its terms be implemented in a 
way that will relieve genuine human suffering in a way that may prevent 
the violence that has already been visited upon Federal property in a 
contest between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the essential 
ingredient to life in the West, and that is water.
  What has happened to the community of Klamath Falls, by conservative 
estimates, will cost that county $200 million. I thank the Senator from 
West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and 
others, who helped me to get $20 million of relief to these people. 
Obviously, it is 10 percent of what is needed, even by conservative 
estimates.
  What I propose to do today is to try to go back to a biological 
opinion that was in place just last April that would have permitted 
this drought to be managed as were the droughts in 1992 and in 1994, in 
which the suckerfish survived, as did the agricultural community around 
it.
  When I speak of the agricultural community, I have to also mention 
the wildlife refuges that get their water from this basin but which are 
now drying up. So farmers and fowl are left with nothing under the new 
biological opinion.
  I do this because, in 1993, the Fish and Wildlife Service laid out a 
plan of action for what it could do to save the suckerfish, so that 
200,000 acres of land continue to receive water and that fish could 
survive. But none of these proposed action plans were pursued. For 
example, it recommended the removal of the Sprague River Dam, which 
would have made available tremendous spawning areas for the suckerfish. 
But that wasn't done. And there were many other actions that could have 
been

[[Page 13146]]

taken to provide aeration, to improve the condition of this lake, so 
that the suckerfish could survive and the farmers along with it.
  But now what we are doing is we are raising this lake 3 feet--it is a 
very big lake, very shallow, but it is being raised 3 feet--and cutting 
off all the water to farmers and fowl. It is being done to save the 
suckerfish, and now, while it is being saved, it is warming up. So the 
coho salmon that will soon be returning expecting to receive the cool 
waters of the Klamath will receive waters the temperature of a swimming 
pool. So, potentially, even the coho salmon--which is also a listed 
species--could be adversely affected by this biological opinion.
  Well, there are two agencies of the Federal Government that are 
competing. One biological opinion is Fish and Wildlife with regard to 
the suckerfish. The other is the biological opinion of the National 
Marine Fisheries Service and the Commerce Department that affects the 
coho salmon. Both biological opinions essentially ask for 100 percent 
of the water which means cutting off 100 percent of the people.
  The point I want to make is that would not be necessary if the 
Federal Government over the last 8 years would have kept its part of 
the bargain and done what it could to mitigate the impact to the sucker 
so that farmers would not be victimized.
  What I do is simply reinstate the previous biological opinions that 
were in effect before this spring until the Federal Government can 
complete action on numerous recommendations of its 1993 recovery plan. 
Again, they were not acted upon over the last 8 years. Why? They say 
budgetary reasons.
  I want this to be a priority. I want the budget to fix this problem. 
I do not want the whole budget burden thrown on the backs of rural 
people, but that is what was decided to be done.
  I want to put some other context to this. This is a current farm 
family in Klamath Falls. These are the human faces being affected by 
what is being done. Foreclosure notices are already going out. Let me 
tell my colleagues about their parents. These are the parents. This is 
the front cover of Life magazine, January 20, 1947. This is a veteran 
of the Second World War. These are people who came home, having saved 
liberty, having defended democracy, having made the United States the 
power in the world that it is today, the force for good that it is 
today.
  In his wisdom, Franklin Roosevelt, even before the war, began to open 
up this land so that people would have a way to escape the Great 
Depression, coming home from the war, and a place to go to work.
  This is the land, the valley. I do not know whether my colleagues can 
see it, but this couple is overlooking the Klamath Basin--farms being 
developed, hay being raised, corn being raised, potatoes being raised 
that fill our shelves today. Look at the hopes and dreams in the faces 
of these people.
  This is a little girl at an assembly of people at a rally a few weeks 
ago. Her sign says: ``Mommy says I can't eat, but fish can.''
  That is what we are driving them to, and it is not right because they 
are being told they are of lesser value under our law than the 
shortnosed sucker.
  This is a picture of the shortnosed sucker. It is a bottom-feeding 
fish. It lives in this shallow lake. It has gone through many droughts 
along with the farmers. It has survived, stressed, I am sure, just as 
humans are stressed in conditions of drought.
  I am not saying this fish has no value. I have never thought the 
suckerfish is very good looking, but it has a mother, and that mother, 
I am sure, loves this fish. I know the Native Americans in this area 
value this fish, and I am not suggesting in any way that we are not 
interested in saving this fish.
  I am saying the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was not to 
engage in a process of rural cleansing, of throwing off their property 
people who had been given great promise and hope for the future. They 
are meeting the mailmen with foreclosure notices because the Federal 
Government decided it is going to breach its promise.
  Let me show you, Mr. President, the deeds of the lands they were 
given. These are veterans. I doubt you can see it, but this is a deed 
assigned to a veteran of the Second World War to go to Klamath. The 
veteran's name goes in this space, and it is signed by Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt.
  My point is that when we proceed to engage in environmental 
restoration, we must not forget that we have a human concern as well. 
We can do both, I am absolutely convinced of it, but we cannot do both 
under this condition.
  This Klamath circumstance is different than other endangered species 
conflicts that always seem to pit the man against the beast. This is 
different. This is about something that is possible, where we can save 
the fish and we do not sacrifice the people.
  I want to keep Franklin Roosevelt's promise alive today because these 
reclamation projects were greatly expanded under his leadership and an 
inland empire was built of rural people, but now those people are being 
told they are of lesser value than the suckerfish. I do not think 
Franklin Roosevelt would agree. I do not agree.
  Mr. President, I plead for my colleagues to remember the human faces 
in this picture, to remember the promises made, and to help me help 
these people. This is not about a fish versus a farmer, unless we go 
down the road of these current biological opinions which have not been 
peer reviewed, in which the people there have no confidence. They are 
biological opinions that began with a determined outcome, and all of 
the activities that were said would be pursued--to provide off-stream 
impoundment, take out a dam, provide some aeration--none of those 
things was done.
  The only way I am going to get the Interior Department to understand 
that it cannot forget its human stewardship, that the Bureau's promises 
still ought to matter, is to go back to the old opinion and tell them 
that the new one cannot happen until they keep the promises made in 
1993. In the meantime, this fish will survive, but my farmers will not 
if we do not begin to reverse course.
  It is too late for this year's crops, I grant you that, but it is 
turning into a dust bowl that existed prior to Franklin Roosevelt's 
vision, and foreclosure notices are going out. At least now we can 
offer some hope that we, on our watch, will not permit this to be 
repeated. We need to give them some more money to make sure that no 
farm is lost to foreclosure because of Government inaction and then 
this action. But we have to help. We have to say this will not happen 
again.
  I do not know how to plead this in as personal terms as I can for the 
help of this body to head off a disaster. This is not fish versus 
farmers. It does not have to be that. But it is that now under what has 
happened over the last 8 years.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. In relation to the Smith amendment, I move to table. I ask 
for the yeas and nays. And I further ask unanimous consent that the 
vote be held at 1:45. There are a number of people who are unable to 
come to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that prior to the 1:45 vote, the 
Senator from Oregon be granted 2 minutes and the Senator from 
California be granted 2 minutes to explain the amendment to the Members 
of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 13147]]

  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada for making a 
motion to table the Smith amendment, which we will vote on at 
approximately 1:45. I wanted to thank my friend from Arizona who has an 
amendment he wants to lay down. He was gracious to allow me to go ahead 
of him and just not to interrupt the debate.
  I hope the motion to table the Smith of Oregon amendment does carry. 
We all share deep concerns about the current drought in southern Oregon 
and in northern California. My constituents have also been hard hit by 
this very dry year. But I think we cannot legislate on an issue that is 
so far-reaching by bringing an amendment to the floor before we have 
even looked at the possible remedies.
  I joined my colleague from Oregon in seeking $20 million in economic 
relief for losses facing Klamath Basin farmers, and I certainly pledge 
to continue working with him to seek more funding and a long-term 
solution to this very vexing problem of getting enough water for 
everyone who needs it and everyone who deserves it.
  The whole history of my State is, in many ways, built around the 
water issue. It is something we deal with all the time because we have 
more ag than any other State. It is one of our biggest businesses in 
California. We also know our State thrives because of tourism, our 
environmental ethic is very strong, and because we have such a 
magnificent State we get the tourists.
  Of course, we have more people than any other State in the Union--now 
almost 34 million people. So you have a constant debate, if you will, a 
constant struggle, if you will, between all the stakeholders. Everyone 
has something at stake with the water supply: The farmer, urban users, 
suburban users, and certainly the wildlife which do not have a voice, 
but we have to be their voice.
  I can't join my colleague from Oregon in undermining the Endangered 
Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a recent opinion 
tells us that without this water the endangered fish will go extinct.
  Science tells us through the Fish and Wildlife Service that there are 
two species of fish that will become extinct if we carry out the plan 
of the Senator from Oregon.
  If we are going to take an action that would lead to the extinction 
of two species of fish, it ought to be done with a little different 
format and not come as an amendment to the appropriations bill.
  I agree that it is very possible that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
has not fully implemented its 1993 recovery plan for these fish. I call 
on them to implement that plan. But cutting off water to the fish this 
year doesn't solve that problem. It will cause the extinction to take 
place.
  I know that the immediate needs of my constituents in the farm areas 
and those in Oregon will not be helped this year. The reality is that 
most of the region's farmers didn't plant this year because they knew 
about this drought. Taking the water from these fish and the needs of 
these species is not going to help the farmers now. But economic relief 
will help them. I am certainly committed to that.
  We need to answer the dire needs of the farmers of the Klamath Basin. 
But driving the fish to extinction while providing little real gain to 
our farmers is certainly the answer.
  It is very hard to look constituents in the eye when they have a 
problem and say: If we help you make a move now that you say will help 
you even though, in fact, in this case it wouldn't really help this 
year, we can't do it because there is a bigger question; that is, the 
delicate balance in terms of who needs this water. It is hard to do 
that. But I think we can't come running to the floor every time to 
undermine laws that are in place--for real reasons. I happen to believe 
that we have the Endangered Species Act because we have to protect 
God's creatures. That is my own feeling. In fact, it is a 
responsibility that we have as a people to do that. If we don't do it, 
it is not going to happen. We have to move to protect these species.
  Again, there may be a reason to take another look at this matter, but 
I hope we will move to table. I am certainly committed to having some 
hearings and moving forward with more economic relief for the farmers 
that are affected in this Klamath River Basin.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation such that 
there will be a vote at 1:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is to be a vote at 1:45 and there is 4 
minutes of debate set aside prior to that vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield, if 
the Senator from Arizona needs the extra 4 minutes, we would be happy 
to work that out.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 904

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 904.

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

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any purpose relating to 
                       Vulcan Monument, Alabama)

       On page 153, line 22, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, of which no funds shall be used for any 
     purpose relating to Vulcan Monument, Alabama''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment I again 
speak before the Senate about the compounding practice of porkbarrel 
spending, particularly in this year's Interior appropriations bill. 
Earlier this year, the administration and, I believe, our leadership 
pledged to curb the Federal Government's practice of funding extraneous 
porkbarrel spending.
  I applaud the administration for its responsible fiscal stance. There 
is a chance for us to get serious. It might sound amusing. But let me 
tell my colleagues that, according to the Washington Post, House 
Members requested 18,898 earmarks in appropriations bills passed thus 
far. Considering this bill in the Senate on Interior, the subcommittee 
reports that it received 1,799 requests for select projects. That is a 
threefold increase since 1993.
  It is shameful.
  This year's Interior appropriations bill is no different. It includes 
$433 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending projects that have 
not been reviewed to determine if they are indeed the highest funding 
priorities. This amount is $153 million higher than the bill last year.
  Let me highlight a few examples for you: $5 million to pay for fish 
screens in the Northwest power planning area; an increase of $2 million 
for the National Fish Health Lab at the Leetown Science Center--you 
will notice that most of these are designated geographically--an 
additional $350,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Program; $1 million for 
noxious weed management at Montana State University; $150,000 to 
rehabilitate a barn at the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge in New 
Hampshire; $3.5 million to renovate a single lodge in a wildlife refuge 
in North Carolina; $700,000 for exhibits at the Rangle National Park in 
Alaska; and an extra $160,000 set aside for public education on the 
Yukon River Salmon Treaty. I think that is also Alaska.
  One of my favorite monuments of porkbarrel spending, another $2 
million is provided to continue refurbishing the Vulcan Monument in 
Alabama. This particular monument also received $1.5 million last year. 
Now we are going to spend $3.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan 
Monument.
  Earmarks for Alaska continue to exceed unprecedented levels, some of 
which are questionable inclusions in

[[Page 13148]]

this bill. For example, an increase of $1.3 million is earmarked for an 
Alaska Native aviation training program.
  I happen to sit on the Commerce Committee. We were never asked to 
authorize that.
  Another $250,000 for the Alaska Market Access Program; $1.1 million 
for the Cook Inlet Agriculture Association; and $2 million for 
construction of kiln drying facilities.
  My colleagues are well aware the National Park Service still faces a 
$5 billion backlog in capital maintenance and resource needs, and we 
are spending $2 million for the construction of kiln drying facilities.
  After years of unchecked, questionable spending, we are in the 
unfortunate position of facing critical budget constraints that will 
hamper our ability to fund fully many necessary Federal programs. 
Instead, we are cutting deep into the taxpayers' pockets once again by 
expecting them to shell out more than $433 million in porkbarrel 
spending included in this bill.
  I have compiled a 24-page list of objectionable earmarks and 
provisions in H.R. 2217. Unfortunately, it is too lengthy to include in 
the Record. But it will be available on my Senate Web page.
  Now we come to the amendment.
  Here is the Vulcan God of Fire and Iron. The colossal statue of 
Vulcan God of Fire and Iron was in the Palace of Mines and Metallurgy, 
where it represented the great iron and fuel industries of Alabama. The 
figure was cast in iron from a model by G. Morelli, a New York 
sculptor. It was brought to St. Louis in sections in over seven freight 
cars and mounted on a pedestal of coal and cike. The statue of Vulcan 
God of Fire and Iron stood 50 feet high and weighed 100,000 pounds. It 
was the largest iron casting ever made, and next to ``Liberty 
Enlightening the World,'' was the largest statue ever constructed. At 
the close of the Exposition the figure was removed to Birmingham and 
set up in Capital Park to remain as a permanent monument. It is a very 
impressive statue.
  Now, in the bill before the Senate today--which, I mentioned, 
contains over $430 million in spending items that have not been 
properly reviewed to determine their worthiness for Federal funding--
there is another $2 million to add to the $1.5 million last to continue 
Vulcan's face-lift.
  At first blush, having the Federal Government give money to a Roman 
god may appear to violate the constitutional separation of church and 
state. Others, with some reason, may believe that this is a rather 
strange use of limited tax dollars. After all, while the on-budget 
Federal surplus is rapidly dwindling, why should Federal dollars pay 
for a face-lift of a statue of a Roman god in Alabama?
  But, Mr. President, I worry this appropriation may set a dangerous 
precedent for others to follow that will only add millions and millions 
to the billions and billions and billions in pork barrel spending doled 
out year after year.
  For example, what is to stop a Senator from sunny Arizona or New 
Mexico from demanding Federal dollars for a statue of Apollo, god of 
the Sun?
  Or how to we prevent a Senator from California to beseech money for a 
statue of Bacchus, god of wine?
  Or a Senator from Georgia, home to the great city of Athens, from 
asking for Federal funds to pay tribute to the Goddess Athena?
  Or even a Senator form the home of some of the best hunting this side 
of the Mississippi, West Virginia, from getting Federal funds for 
Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt?
  Maybe this is the time to stop this. Not one more Federal dollar 
should be spent on this kind of foolishness.
  I ask my colleagues to extinguish this Roman god of fire and strike a 
victory for taxpayers--and Metis, the goddess of prudence--by 
throttling down our insatiable appetite for pork barrel spenidng--
starting today.
  Finally, Mr. President, there are statues--for a moment of 
seriousness--all over this Nation that require refurbishing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 4 minutes have been 
reserved at this time for the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from 
California.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Mr. President, as I said before, there are 
statues all over this Nation erected to worthy, wonderful, and 
patriotic Americans as well as people from other countries that need 
refurbishment. If we are going to start down this path of millions of 
dollars to refurbish a statue of Vulcan, I don't know where it all 
ends.
  I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Arizona, it appears the two parties 
in relation to the prior amendment are going to talk for a couple 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Fine.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 899

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, the Senator from 
California has 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment of the Senator 
from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip and the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for offering to 
have a hearing. I hope we have a hearing. But, frankly, I need the 
people of Klamath Falls to know where we are, so I am asking that we 
proceed with the unanimous consent agreement that is already in place, 
that we have a vote. And I know I may lose this vote. But I say to my 
colleagues, these are Federal projects. These were Federal promises. 
This is a Federal action now that is crushing people, some of whom have 
been there for 100 years or more. I think it is deplorable that this 
Government would have had a biological opinion and a whole list of 
actions they said they would take, and 8 years later there is nothing 
done except a new opinion that says no water for people, no water for 
farms.
  It is time for us to start caring about rural folks who are 
increasingly powerless. I ask for a vote on their behalf.
  I yield back my time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized 
under the previous order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could just be told when I have used 
30 seconds, and I will leave the remainder of the time for Senator 
Jeffords, my chairman. And I thank him for coming down here.
  Water is a vexing issue in California. We have had water wars for a 
long time. You have to figure out how everyone can be at the table: The 
farmers, the urban users, suburban users, and the environmental 
people--people with environmental concerns--because obviously the 
wildlife has no voice. We have to make sure we protect the wildlife.
  If this amendment goes through today----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 10 seconds--two species of fish are gone--that 
is it, extinct. That is the scientific word from Fish and Wildlife. I 
hope we will defeat this amendment.
  I ask my friend to continue this conversation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, unfortunately, I have to rise in support 
of the motion to table. I had hoped my good friend from Oregon would 
agree to withdraw his amendment so that I could hold a hearing and 
ascertain for him and the public whether or not

[[Page 13149]]

there should be an exception granted to the Endangered Species Act with 
respect to this particular problem. Unfortunately, I understand he does 
not desire to do so.
  This is a critical issue and for us to summarily do this would be 
really inconsistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act. 
That act is an important one, and it is one that has saved many species 
which have resulted in huge breakthroughs in medicine and in other 
ways.
  We have to be very careful about what we do with respect to 
endangered species. So I will support the motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment would prevent the Fish and 
Wildlife Service from providing water for fish in the Klamath basin. 
The water at issue here is water the Service has determined is 
necessary to prevent the extinction of threatened and endangered 
species like the suckerfish and coho salmon in Oregon and California.
  Only 2 days ago, we approved a supplemental appropriations bill. 
During that debate we heard many Members argue for additional spending 
for very important priorities. Fiscal constrains prevented us for 
meeting many of them. But one of the priorities we did address in that 
bill dealt with the very subject of this amendment.
  The bill provided $20 million to assist Oregon farmers who have been 
impacted by the drought and species concerns in the Klamath basin--$20 
million. They are not the only farmers who have been impacted by 
drought (it's a problem that affects Nevada's farmers and ranchers this 
year as well), but to my knowledge they are the only farmers that 
received special aid in the supplemental.
  The State of Nevada faces many of the same problems my colleague has 
spoken about here this afternoon. I would like to work with him to 
address those problems without modifying the Endangered Species Act in 
the manner he proposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 899. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--48

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 904

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with permission of the managers of the bill, 
I ask that the two Senators from Alabama each have 2 minutes to speak 
in opposition to the McCain amendment, and Senator McCain have the 
final 2 minutes to speak in favor of his amendment.
  This appears to be the last amendment we are going to have on this 
bill. The managers have informed me, along with the two leaders, that 
around 4 o'clock we will have a vote on final passage. It will take 
that much time to work on the managers' amendment to get together the 
loose pieces.
  I ask unanimous consent that we proceed now to a vote on the McCain 
amendment after the two Senators from Alabama speak and the Senator 
from Arizona speaks, and I also ask unanimous consent that when that 
vote is completed, the Senator from Oregon be recognized to speak for 5 
minutes in relation to the Smith amendment of which we just disposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I am troubled, quite 
frankly, that I have to defend Federal funding for historic 
preservation of the Vulcan Monument, which is of great importance to 
the people of Alabama and the South.
  The Vulcan Monument in Birmingham, AL, is a unique and enduring 
hallmark of the city. It was constructed in 1904 to mark the 100th 
anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase and stands as a symbol of 
economic transformation in the South. Much like the Arch, the Golden 
Gate Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, and the Liberty Bell represent 
their respective cities and are symbols representing greater 
achievements for their communities and our Nation, the Vulcan stands as 
an important historical landmark for Birmingham and represents the 
rebirth of industrial development in the South.
  I want the record to be clear that while Federal funds are important 
to the restoration of the Vulcan Monument, city and local fundraising 
efforts are leading the way toward completing the restoration project. 
While the Federal share for restoration efforts reaches $3.5 million, 
private citizens throughout the region have contributed over $10 
million.
  This is an excellent example of a public-private partnership trying 
to preserve an important historical treasure for the South and our 
Nation. It happens to be in Birmingham, AL.
  I believe this amendment is misguided, and I pray it will be 
defeated.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know Senator Shelby travels throughout 
Alabama every year in every county, as do I. When we do so, we learn 
something about the State. As a kid going into Birmingham, I saw the 
Vulcan statue, the symbol for the steel city of Birmingham. It is a 
preeminent symbol of Alabama, and there will be no other statue in the 
State with as much prominence.
  With the local citizens raising $10 million, with my support and 
certainly that of Senator Shelby, the contribution from the Federal 
Government will help complete this historical renovation and 
restoration. It is a good use of the money, in my opinion as a Senator 
from Alabama. It is a good priority use of money for historic 
development.
  I oppose the McCain amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me quote from an October 23, 2000, 
issue of U.S. News & World Report entitled ``Washington Goes On A 
Spending Spree.''

       . . . a 56-foot, iron rendition of the Roman god of fire 
     and metalwork. Built as an entry for the 1904 World Fair, it 
     won the grand prize in the Palace of Metallurgy. Steward 
     Dansby, executive director of the Vulcan Park Foundation, 
     says officials at the organization talked to Alabama Sen. 
     Richard Shelby about helping to fund the renovation. ``Why 
     are federal tax dollars being spent on a statue in 
     Birmingham?'' asked Dansby. ``Because Vulcan is symbolic of 
     American industrial strength. He represents the working 
     person and . . . [This is the best part.] These are federal 
     dollars that would have gone somewhere.''

  There are statues all over America that need refurbishment. I hope 
everybody lines up with statues that need to be refurbished because the 
store seems to be open.
  I know this amendment will not pass, but everybody ought to be on 
record as to whether they support this kind of porkbarreling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment

[[Page 13150]]

No. 904. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) is 
necessarily abent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 87, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--12

     Allard
     Bayh
     Carnahan
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hollings
     Kyl
     McCain
     Smith (NH)
     Stabenow

                                NAYS--87

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The amendment (No. 904) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oregon is recognized for a period of 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 899

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few minutes ago the Senate voted on an 
Endangered Species Act amendment with special impact for farmers and 
rural people in my home State. I voted against the motion to table with 
great reluctance and wanted to take just a couple minutes to explain my 
vote this afternoon.
  I think it is dangerous to legislate biological opinions about 
species without the opportunity to thoughtfully review the effects of 
such a far-reaching amendment. I think it is just as dangerous to force 
our citizens in rural communities into dire circumstances when a law 
that has accomplished many good things contains serious administrative 
flaws that are producing an increasing number of bad things.
  It was my intent, if the Endangered Species Act amendment had not 
been tabled, to offer a second-degree amendment to it. My amendment 
would have allowed the Senate to pick up on the very generous offer 
made by Chairman Jeffords to try to get this job done right.
  My amendment would have sought to try to address the problems in the 
Klamath Basin in a comprehensive way, in a fashion that would have 
helped farmers produce water conservation and improve water quality 
and, at the same time, would have protected species.
  I think it is very clear that the challenge with the Endangered 
Species Act is to bring folks together. The challenge is to get 
everybody at the table--all of the stakeholders; farmers, environmental 
leaders, scientists, and others--to try to come up with ways that keep 
the important protections of the Endangered Species Act and, at the 
same time, encourage the administrative flexibility so we can have more 
homegrown solutions.
  I am absolutely convinced that the objectives of the Endangered 
Species Act make a lot of sense. But what you do in the Klamath Basin 
has to be different than what you do in the Bronx. And what you do in 
Detroit to protect a species is different than the challenge in Coos 
Bay, OR.
  I look forward very much to picking up on the generous offer of 
Chairman Jeffords to work with our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, 
to find comprehensive solutions to this Endangered Species Act 
challenge.
  As I say, I voted against the motion to table today with great 
reluctance. I am very anxious to work with our colleagues, on a 
bipartisan basis, for a more comprehensive solution.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate, on a hectic day, giving me a 
few minutes this afternoon to explain my vote. I yield back and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 975

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside, and further, I ask unanimous consent to send an 
amendment to the desk, that it be in order, and it also be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 975.

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

         (Purpose: To modify the steel loan guarantee program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATION TO STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 101 of the Emergency Steel Loan 
     Guarantee Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51; 15 U.S.C. 1841 
     note) is amended as follows:
       (1) Requirements for loan guarantees.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (g) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``a private bank or 
     investment company'' and inserting ``an institution''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (f)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``private banking and investment''.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Subsection (h) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2015''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Guarantee level.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     any loan guarantee provided under this section shall not 
     exceed 85 percent of the amount of principal of the loan.
       ``(B) Increased level.--A loan guarantee may be provided 
     under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not more than 
     95 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan, if--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time 
     does not exceed $500,000,000; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage under this section with respect to a single 
     qualified steel company does not exceed $100,000,000.''.
       (3) Reports to congress.--Subsection (i) is amended by 
     striking ``of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually 
     thereafter,'' and inserting ``fiscal year''.
       (4) Termination of guarantee authority.--Subsection (k) is 
     amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
       (5) Monitoring, reporting, and foreclosure procedures.--
     Subsection (l) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``All monitoring, reporting, and foreclosure procedures (and 
     other matters addressed in the guarantee agreement) 
     established with respect to loan guarantees provided under 
     this section shall be consistent with customary practices in 
     the commercial banking industry. Minor or inadvertent 
     reporting violations shall not cause termination of any 
     guarantee provided under this section.''.
       (6) Definition of steel companies.--Subsection (c)(3)(B) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) is engaged in--
       ``(i) the production or manufacture of a product identified 
     by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel 
     mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates, 
     flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars, 
     rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod;
       ``(ii) the production or manufacture of coke used in the 
     production of steel; or
       ``(iii) the mining of iron ore; and''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101 of the Emergency 
     Steel Loan Guarantee Act

[[Page 13151]]

     of 1999 is further amended by striking subsection (m).
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply only with respect to any guarantee issued on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 878

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself, Mr. 
     Murkowski, and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 878.

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

 (Purpose: To help ensure general aviation aircraft access to Federal 
                 land and the airspace over that land)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. BACKCOUNTRY LANDING STRIP ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Funds made available by this Act shall not 
     be used to permanently close any aircraft landing strip 
     described in subsection (b) without public notice, 
     consultation with appropriate Federal and State aviation 
     officials, and the consent of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.
       (b) Aircraft landing strips.--An aircraft landing strip 
     referred to in subsection (a) is a landing strip on Federal 
     land that--
       (1) is officially recognized by an appropriate Federal or 
     State aviation official;
       (2) is administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture; and
       (3) is commonly known for use for, and is consistently used 
     for, aircraft landing and departure activities.
       (c) Permanent Closure.--For the purposes of subsection (a), 
     an aircraft landing strip shall be considered to be closed 
     permanently if the intended duration of the closure is more 
     than 180 days in any calendar year.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator 
Burns, for the hard work they have put into this year's Interior and 
related agencies appropriations bill. It is a changing process and they 
have done an excellent job in balancing the competing interests within 
the confines of our effort to make sure we maintain a balanced budget.
  At this point, I want to explain the amendment I present. I intend to 
withdraw the amendment when I am finished discussing it for reasons 
that will become apparent as I discuss it. In the past couple of years, 
we have seen a disturbing trend in the Department of the Interior and 
in the Depart of Agriculture regarding our Forest Service relating to 
back-country airstrips. The administration has begun to follow a 
pattern of allowing back-country airstrips to either go into a state of 
disrepair--here they become unusable--or to actually close, permanently 
close some of them, which is a serious problem to those parts of our 
public lands that need the services that these back-country airstrips 
can supply.
  Idaho, right now, is home to more than 50 of these landing strips, 
and our State is known nationwide for its air access to public lands 
and wilderness and primitive areas. Unfortunately, in the past, many of 
these airstrips in Idaho, and in other parts of the country, have been 
rendered unserviceable through the neglect I talked about earlier, or 
the decisions to close the airstrips without adequate public notice or 
any justification being provided.
  There is a concern about this because these airstrips provide not 
only access to the back country for recreational use, but they are 
critical for maintenance and some of the management purposes of the 
agencies in managing our public lands and fighting forest fires, for 
example, or in providing the necessary access by agency personnel to 
perform their work on public lands, and also as part of rescue missions 
when they find the need to provide for rescue. It is those who use the 
back-country airstrips who are often the ones who provide the valiant 
efforts to make rescues of people who are in distress in our national 
public lands.
  Senators Craig and Murkowski are cosponsors with me on the 
legislation to address this issue and to require the agencies to work 
with State and local communities and to engage in a process of public 
notice and justification. In fact, it is our hope that, ultimately, we 
will be able to pass this legislation on a permanent basis. That would 
require the agencies to obtain the consent of the State personnel who 
are involved with the management of our airways and aviation concerns.
  At this point, we were prepared to offer this amendment to the bill 
this year to the Interior appropriations bill, which would have, simply 
for the period of this appropriations bill, required the agencies to 
consult with the State agency officials involved in aviation management 
in the States, and to assure that the right kind of consultation would 
occur between the various State and Federal officials before closure of 
any of these landing strips in our back-country areas.
  However, we have been working with the administration to try to 
obviate the need to propose this amendment. I am pleased to say, that I 
am now able to report to the people in the country that both the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture have 
agreed--and I will be submitting letters for the Record in writing to 
indicate this agreement--that they will honor the purposes of this 
amendment and make it the policy of those two agencies to comply with 
the requirements of this amendment and to continue to work with us on 
our permanent legislation so we can address this issue on a permanent 
basis.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can interrupt the Senator from Idaho in 
an effort to develop a colloquy with the Senator with regard to 
encouraging various agencies to work with the States on the issue of 
backcountry airport access.
  Mr. CRAPO. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is probably not applicable in areas of high 
concentration of private land, but out West, we have vast areas of 
virtually nothing. You can only appreciate that if you get in a small 
airplane and fly over the western part of the United States or my State 
of Alaska.
  I had a group of Senators in a single-engine airplane a few years 
ago. We had been in the air 2\1/2\ hours cruising along at about 80 
knots. Finally, one of them said: How much more wilderness do I have to 
see to, indeed, believe there is a lot of wilderness to be seen and 
beauty to be seen?
  Nevertheless, when that engine quits, you have a problem. If you do 
not have some of these areas available--I know many of our friends from 
the east coast and populated areas cannot quite appreciate why we need 
them, but we vitally need them.
  I join with my colleague in what I understand is a general commitment 
from the agencies, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 
the Interior, to work with the States to identify what is in the 
interest of the States from the standpoint of safety access.
  I commend him in that effort and hope when legislation is necessary 
that our colleagues will understand we need this in the wide open 
spaces out West. I see my friend from Montana who also agrees with 
this. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska 
for his strong support on this issue. He is, as I indicated, a 
cosponsor of the legislation we will be pursuing and was supporting us 
in the effort to put this amendment on this bill again as it was last 
year.
  Just so we can understand correctly, I want to read into the Record 
what the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 
committed to so we can begin the process, which I think is a very 
important first step in moving toward resolution of this issue.
  The first letter is from Secretary Gale Norton, the Secretary of the 
Interior:


[[Page 13152]]

       Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of the Interior is 
     committed to working with you and other Members of Congress 
     to develop a comprehensive process to ensure that state and 
     local governments and citizens have an opportunity to 
     participate in issues relating to backcountry airstrips 
     located on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the 
     Interior.
       Our Nation's backcountry airstrips are important to many 
     activities that take place on our public lands. Airstrips 
     provide remote access for aerial firefighting efforts, they 
     are an essential safety tool for pilots operating in rural 
     and mountainous areas, and they provide a vital link to the 
     outside world for many rural communities.
       It is important to ensure that legitimate uses of 
     backcountry airstrips are protected. It is also a priority 
     for this Department that any proposals to alter use of 
     federal lands must go through open and public process that 
     includes close consultation with local communities. I commit 
     to work with you, and other members of the congressional 
     delegation, the State of Idaho, and local communities on any 
     proposals to change the use of backcountry airstrips on lands 
     managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

  The second letter is from the Department of Agriculture:

       Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is 
     committed to working with you and other Members of Congress 
     to develop a comprehensive, long-term approach for managing 
     backcountry airstrips on lands managed by the USDA Forest 
     Service.
       We agree that it is appropriate to maintain airstrips that 
     provide critical air access to rural, backcountry, or 
     wilderness areas; that contribute to pilot safety; or that 
     support aerial firefighting efforts. The Department also 
     agrees that these airstrips should not be permanently closed 
     without prior consultation with State aviation and other 
     appropriate officials.
       We appreciate your leadership on this issue and look 
     forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ann Veneman,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. President, because we have now obtained the commitment of the 
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior that they 
will work with us in a public process and in a consultative process 
with the State officials involved in managing aviation issues, and 
because they have acknowledged the important critical needs of 
maintaining these backcountry airstrips in good condition, and instead 
of closing them, keeping them open and available for use, we do not 
believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment on this legislation.
  I appreciate the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture agreeing 
and working with us to avoid the need for this amendment, and we 
appreciate their commitment to work with us in the future on permanent 
legislation that will fully resolve this issue statutorily.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 878) was withdrawn.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the Senator from 
Arizona who earlier today, in listing programs in this bill he felt 
were inappropriate--I believe he used the word ``pork'' or some other 
derogatory reference to those programs--cited a $150,000 proposal in 
this bill to build a barn at the John Hay estate in New Hampshire.
  I honestly believe the Senator from Arizona has done a disservice to 
the people of New Hampshire by citing this item as one of the items on 
his list. It appears to me the research on that list may be rather weak 
if he is putting on the list items such as this. I want to give the 
history of this situation.
  The John Hay estate is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. John 
Hay was Abraham Lincoln's secretary. He was Theodore Roosevelt's and 
William McKinley's Secretary of State. He served for years as a public 
servant of extraordinary import in our Nation's history in the latter 
part of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century, 
playing a major role in a number of very significant events, especially 
in the period 1890 to 1905 when he died.
  As part of his lifestyle, he was a Renaissance man. He had been, as I 
mentioned, secretary to Lincoln and is quite famous for his notes on 
Lincoln. In Washington, he started something called the Five of Hearts, 
a very famous historical group that met regularly at his home, which is 
now the Hay-Adams--Hay-Adams was not actually his home. His home was 
where the Hay-Adams is. That is the physical location.
  That group involved five people of incredible intellectual capacity, 
and they became known as the Five of Hearts. He was part of that group 
and his wife was also.
  As part of his effort and as part of the culture of that time 
actually, he wanted to set up a community which would be a respite from 
the hectic life of policy and government, and he chose the shores of 
Lake Sunapee in New Hampshire to try to do that. He came to New 
Hampshire and purchased a significant amount of land at that time--over 
a thousand acres--and an old farm and began to try to attract to that 
part of New Hampshire during the summer people who were world leaders 
in order to think and relax in what was really a bucolic atmosphere; it 
still is. It is a fabulous pastoral setting.
  It is a lot like what Saint-Gaudens, who was another significant 
person in that period and tremendous artist in our history, had done in 
another part of New Hampshire called Cornish.
  He built a farmhouse; he took the old farmhouse and renovated it. It 
was situated on 1,000 acres. Of course, with any farmhouse there was a 
barn, as one might expect in that period. His family has owned that 
property for years and years. In the late 1980s, his daughter gave the 
property as part of her estate to the U.S. Government because she 
thought it was so important it be preserved as part of history because 
it is a truly unique piece of property.
  One of the things he did on that property was bring in some 
extraordinary plants. In his travels he collected plants of alpine 
nature and built an alpine yard which is one of the rarest gardens in 
this country and has been designated so by the national garden groups. 
He built other gardens around the home. He had Theodore Roosevelt there 
and planted trees. There is a Theodore Roosevelt tree which grows 
outside the house.
  The house itself was architecturally unique and presents a classic 
example of a Greek revival farmhouse in the New England tradition which 
existed in the late 19th century. But most of those homes have been 
lost either through fires or being torn down over the years.
  The gift of this property to us, the people of America, by his family 
was an extremely generous act. At that time it was given to us, it 
involved only 100 acres but over a mile of frontage on the lake. 
Frontage on the lake is extremely expensive. The house itself was not 
in good repair, and the barn was not, and the gardens were at risk 
because the gardener who had been managing them for over 50 years was 
getting a little old and decided to give it up.
  So as a result of a community effort with over 600 people involved, 
called the Friends of John Hay, we restored this home. There has been a 
fair amount of Federal dollars committed to trying to restore the home 
over the years. Senator Rudman, my predecessor, got the initial funds, 
and I have been successful in obtaining funds to restore the home. Why? 
Because, of course, it is a Federal property and we have 
responsibility. It would be as if we owned the home, and we may well 
own the home of Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, for all I know, and are 
restoring that home. But it is a Federal responsibility for which we 
have responsibility.
  More importantly than that, it is a property that had such a magnetic 
effect in the region as a truly unique, historical site architecturally 
and because of the gardens, that the community around the property has 
risen up with great energy, enthusiasm, and support. There are over 600 
people who participate now in maintaining the gardens in what is a 
voluntarism that is rather significant and instructive and now has the 
gardens back to where they should be, as the home is back to where it 
should be.
  As part of this property, as I mentioned, there was a barn. The barn 
was

[[Page 13153]]

also an architecturally unique building, with unique windows and unique 
buttresses inside. But more importantly, as part of the property, being 
a traditional New England home, it set the nature of the property.
  This winter, for those who had the good fortune to go to New 
Hampshire and ski, we had great snow. We had such great snow, it never 
stopped snowing all winter long. Throughout our State and Vermont and 
Maine--Vermont does not get as great snow as we get, but they still get 
snow--a lot of homes, buildings, schools, in fact, found their roofs 
caved in. Regrettably, what happened at the Hay estate was, the barn, 
which was a historical barn, had a snow base on it which it could not 
maintain, even after 100 years--maybe not 100; maybe 85. Regrettably, 
the barn collapsed under the weight of the snow.
  I guess it is the position of the Senator from Arizona that when a 
building that is on a historical site, which is the responsibility of 
the Federal Government to maintain, collapses, we should simply leave 
it there: Historical building that collapsed? Just leave it there. I 
guess that is the position of the Senator from Arizona.
  What these funds were for--$150,000, which is not a great deal of 
money when you consider the character and size of the barn--was to 
restore the barn, put it back together, put it back up, and hopefully 
put in buttresses which will withstand the next major snow, which, of 
course, we hope to have again for our skiers.
  The fact is, for the Senator from Arizona to come down here and 
represent it as somehow pork or inappropriate that the Federal 
Government has a responsibility to maintain a historical site of such 
significance, which had such huge community involvement when there was 
a disaster affecting that site which was the result of an act of God--
by the way, an excessive snow year is pushing the envelope on how you 
define what are appropriate expenditures at the Federal level.
  I cannot think of anything more appropriate than for the Federal 
Government to manage the property that has been given to the people of 
this country in a reasonable way. The reasonable thing to do, of 
course, is to rebuild the historical barn so the integrity of the 
property is maintained.
  I believe the Senator from Arizona is misguided on this point. I want 
to put that in the Record. I will be happy to invite the Senator from 
Arizona on his next trip to New Hampshire, which appears to be 
reasonably frequent, to stop by at the Hay estate and see the barn, see 
the estate, see the gardens, maybe meet with the 600 people who work 
there on a regular basis as volunteers, and ask them whether that barn 
is an important part of that estate and whether the Federal Government 
has a responsibility to at least rebuild the barn when the people are 
volunteering literally thousands of hours to maintain the estate for 
free. I look forward to the Senator stopping by at the John Hay estate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the Presiding Officer a 
good afternoon and hopefully a short one.
  It was my understanding there was a distinct possibility with the 
upcoming expiration of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which expires 
in August, a renewal of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act might be 
offered as an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. If that 
had been the case, I was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment to 
the ILSA renewal with respect to our energy dependence on Iraq. I have 
an amendment at the desk that would do just that.
  I will not call up that amendment at this time, but I would like to 
alert my colleagues of the significance of what is going on with regard 
to Iraq. I think the occupant and other Members are aware of the Smith-
Schumer letter which addresses the ILSA issue by extending for 5 years 
the moratorium on trade with both Iran and Libya.
  The important thing to note is the 71 signatures in favor of 
extending that moratorium. As we know, it takes a 50-vote point of 
order to waive rule XVI, which is legislation on appropriations. I am 
not going to violate that.
  We have a great inconsistency here. I have been coming to the floor 
for a long time talking about energy policies. I am referring today, of 
course, to our continuing dependence on petroleum from Iraq. We import 
somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq every 
day. That is about $6 billion worth in the last year.
  Let me share with the Presiding Officer what the curve is relative to 
the increase in our oil imports from Iraq to the United States. It 
started in 1997 and has had its ups and downs. In 1998 we had a 
takeoff, and we are currently importing somewhere in the area of 
700,000 barrels a day.
  We had an interesting occurrence about 6 weeks ago where Iraq was 
unhappy with its treatment by the U.N. and made a decision to reduce 
its production by 2.5 million barrels a day for a month. That took 60 
million barrels a day off the market.
  Now, there were many in this body who thought OPEC would simply 
increase their production and offset that. That was not the case. OPEC 
simply decided to wait 30 days. As a consequence, the 30 days have 
passed, and Saddam Hussein did not get what he wanted from the U.N., 
but he did turn back his production level.
  As a consequence, I think it is important to recognize what is 
happening with regard to Iraq. Many people forget we had a war over 
there in 1990 and 1991. That war cost us some 148 American lives. We 
had 400-some wounded. We had several taken prisoner. We were 
successful. The purpose of the war was very simple, it was to keep 
Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait and going on into Saudi Arabia and 
basically controlling the world's supply of oil. Make no mistake about 
it, that was a real war.
  The consequences of that are rather interesting to reflect on now. If 
we look at the situation with regard to our friend, Saddam Hussein, we 
find American families are now going to Saddam Hussein for energy. Iraq 
is the fastest growing U.S. source of oil imports: Again, 750,000 from 
Iraq; about 2.3 million from the Persian Gulf countries; the OPEC 
countries, about 5 million barrels a day.
  I am not going to stop there because I think that is where the issue 
is kind of left in the minds of many Americans. But let's think about 
realities. Since the gulf war, we have enforced an aerial blockade. 
Perhaps some of my colleagues could share with me the difference 
between an aerial blockade and a surface blockade. A surface blockade 
with the Navy is generally considered an act of war. We have been 
enforcing this no-fly zone. We call it a no-fly zone, but it is really 
an aerial blockade. We have flown nearly 250,000 individual sorties, 
flights, over Iraq, enforcing this aerial blockade. We have done it to 
prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening our allies in the region.
  We are spending billions of dollars to keep Saddam Hussein in check. 
What are we doing with the oil? We take his oil, we fill up our 
airplanes, and send our pilots to fly over Iraq. They are shot at by 
Iraqi artillery. Then they return, fill up on Iraqi oil, and do it 
again.
  I find that discomforting, to say the least. I am indignant. It is 
unacceptable. I could use many adjectives. But Saddam Hussein is 
heating our homes in the winter, getting our kids ready for school each 
day, getting our food from the farm to the table, and we pay him pretty 
well to do that.
  Let me refer to what is happening as a consequence of this. I will 
get back to this chart a little later. We can view it with some 
reflection because it represents a very significant trend.
  Let's talk about what Saddam Hussein does with the money we pay him. 
He pays his Republican Guards to keep him alive; he supports 
international terrorist activities--we are aware of that; he funds his 
military campaign against American interests, American service men and 
women and our allies; and he is desperately trying to shoot one of our 
aircraft down.
  When that happens, if it happens, God forbid, I don't know what the 
reaction is going to be. But I know what

[[Page 13154]]

my personal reaction is. This risk has been evident to the American 
people and the American Congress. We have condoned it. We have not done 
anything about it. Why not?
  The inconsistency, of course, is we are proposing to extend our 
sanctions on Iran and Libya for another five years. We have not 
imported a drop of oil from Iran in 20 years. I am not suggesting we 
should. But we do not even mention Iraq.
  In addition to paying his Republican Guards, supporting international 
terrorists, he builds an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction with 
biological capability. Who does he threaten? He threatens our ally, 
Israel. As a matter of fact, he ends virtually every speech with, 
``Death to Israel.''
  I don't know how more pointed I could get. Maybe I am missing 
something in this. Is this good policy? For a number of years the 
United States has worked closely with the United Nations on the Oil For 
Food Program. The program allows Iraq to export petroleum in exchange 
for funds which can be used for food, medicine, and other humanitarian 
products. But despite more than $15 billion available for those 
purposes, Iraq has only spent a fraction of that money for the needs of 
the Iraqi people. Instead, the Iraqi Government spends it on missile 
capability, defensive and offensive capability, a highly trained 
military. One has to wonder why, when billions of dollars are available 
to care for the people of Iraq; many of whom are malnourished, many of 
whom are sick, many of whom have inadequate medical care; why would 
Saddam Hussein withhold the money available and choose, instead, to 
blame the United States for the plight of his people? Why is Iraq 
reducing the amount they spend on nutrition and prenatal care? Why are 
they reducing that amount when millions of dollars are available? Why 
does $200 million of medicine from the U.N. sit undistributed in Iraqi 
warehouses? Why, given the urgent state of humanitarian conditions in 
Iraq, does Saddam Hussein insist that his country's highest priority is 
the development of sophisticated telecommunications and transportation 
infrastructure? Why, if there are billions available and his people are 
starving, is Iraq only buying about $8 million in agricultural products 
from the United States?
  I do not have any quarrel with the Oil For Food Program. It is well 
intentioned. I do have a problem with the means with which Saddam 
Hussein has manipulated our growing dependency on Iraqi oil.
  Three times since the beginning of the Oil For Food Program Saddam 
Hussein has threatened, or actually halted, oil production, as I 
indicated, disrupting energy markets, sending world prices 
skyrocketing. Why did he do this? I guess he wants to send a message to 
the United States. The message might be: I have leverage over you.
  Every time I look at this chart I look at the increased leverage 
associated with Saddam Hussein and OPEC and the cartel. We do not have 
cartels in this country. We cannot. We have antitrust laws against it. 
But we are feeding this cartel with our appetite for crude oil.
  The harsh reality is, as much as we would like to relieve our 
dependence on oil with alternative energies--we have alternative 
sources of energy. We have coal, we have natural gas, we have hydro, we 
have nuclear, but you do not move America or the world on that kind of 
energy. You move America and the world on oil. We do not have a 
substitute for that. We do not have anything realistic to replace it.
  We are going to become more dependent unless we address the 
alternative and that is to reduce our dependence here at home by 
conservation and opening up new sources where we are likely to find a 
significant volume of oil.
  One of the things in my energy bill as a specific goal and target is 
to reduce the dependence on imports of oil to less than 50 percent by 
2010. You can do it in one fell swoop if, indeed, the oil in ANWR is 
what it purports to be, somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion 
barrels a day. The question is, Can you do it safely; and the answer is 
clearly yes.
  There is one other thing I would like to mention that has not gone 
into the ANWR argument to any extent. That is the interests of the 
residents of the area. That particular issue involved 95,000 acres of 
land that are in ANWR, up here at this very top of the world, in this 
area, Kaktovik--these Natives have 95,000 acres of land. I have a chart 
that shows the Native ownership. But the Native ownership is basically 
such that it has no access to the existing pipeline. It has no access 
from the standpoint of producing, even for the villagers there, the gas 
that is in the village site for use by the villagers. They are simply 
precluded.
  We use the term ``corked'' in Alaska. Corked means that when you are 
out fishing and you have your net the way fish are swimming, somebody 
takes their net and goes in front of you.
  That is just what has happened up here with our Native people. The 
Native people have 95,000 acres of private land. They are precluded 
from recovering even their own natural gas for development and usage. 
That is wrong.
  As we look at reality, and as we look at our increased dependence on 
imports, by the votes we have seen here, whether it is on lease sale 
181 or some of the issues relative to our national monuments, we had 
better come to grips with reality. Where are these deposits going to 
come from if they do not come from areas that are still open?
  This is a chart that shows the areas that are closed. The west coast 
and the east coast are off limits. Take lease sale 181. Three-quarters 
of that is off limits. The entire overthrust belt is off limits as a 
consequence of actions by the last administration.
  I make this point simply to highlight the reality. Here we are 
talking about extending moratoriums against Iran and against Libya with 
no mention of Iraq. We have placed our energy security in the hands of 
a madman, Saddam Hussein.
  The administration has attempted valiantly to reconstruct a sensible 
multilateral policy towards Iraq. Those attempts, unfortunately, have 
not been successful. We are still dependent on foreign imports, and a 
significant portion is coming from Iraq.
  I think before we can construct a sensible United States policy 
towards Iraq, we need to end the blatant inconsistency between our 
energy policy and our foreign policy. We need to end our addiction to 
Iraqi oil. We need to basically go cold turkey. To that end, in a 
moment I will introduce legislation which would prohibit oil imports 
from Iraq, whether or not under the Oil for Food Program, until it is 
no longer inconsistent with our national security to resume these 
imports. I hope that this will be an initial step toward a more 
rational and coherent policy towards Iraq.
  As a consequence, I am withdrawing my amendment at the desk. I trust 
my colleagues have picked up to some extent the points I have brought 
out.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute as if in morning 
business to introduce my bill. Then I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1170 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think we are at a stage in the debate 
on the bill that I can now say we have completed all of our work.
  I compliment the chairman and the ranking member for their 
extraordinary work in the last couple of days

[[Page 13155]]

in getting us to this point. Let me also thank Senator Gramm of Texas 
for his work in the last couple of hours in working with Senator Byrd 
on a concern of great import to Senator Byrd.
  There has been no request for a rollcall vote on final passage. I am 
now in a position to announce that there will be no more rollcall votes 
tonight.
  There are no rollcall votes scheduled for tomorrow, nor will there be 
votes on Monday.
  My hope is that we will be able to move to the energy and water 
appropriations bill on Monday for debate only, and then we will move 
into debate on amendments beginning as early as Tuesday. I hope 
Senators will file their amendments and will be prepared to offer them 
even though we will not have votes on Monday. I encourage them to do 
that.
  I am hopeful we can get at least two appropriations bills done, if 
not more, next week.
  We have a lot of work to do. But there are no more votes tonight. As 
promised, I have also made a commitment that a number of nominations--
if I recall, something on the order of 20 nominations--will be offered 
shortly. We are about ready to do that. There is at least one that will 
be the subject of some discussion. But I know of no requests for 
rollcalls on those nominations. No more rollcall votes tonight.
  We will begin work on Monday, hopefully, on energy and water.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to offer 
a few observations as we are closing up this Interior appropriations 
bill. I must thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for his work 
as chairman of this committee. His staff has been remarkable. They are 
easy to work with, and they have accommodated, I think, as many people 
in this body as they possibly could.
  Peter Kiefhaber has done a commendable job in his first year as the 
clerk for the majority. His willingness to work with my staff has 
ensured that this bill has reached its bipartisan form. He has been 
assisted by a number of very capable staff members, including Ginny 
James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Brooke Livingston, and a detailee from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Scott Dalzell.
  On my side of the ring, I thank my staff members who work with me on 
the minority side.
  Bruce Evans lent his expertise after spending numerous years as the 
majority clerk under the very able chairmanship of Senator Slade Gorton 
of Washington. I have a lot more respect for the former Senator from 
Washington and the work he did because this is my first year on 
Interior appropriations. I personally thank Bruce for continuing his 
service in the Senate and helping me through my first year as chairman 
and then ranking member on this bill.
  I also thank Christine Drager for her assistance on a number of 
extremely difficult accounts, as well as Ryan Thomas, who moved from my 
personal office to the Appropriations Committee to lend a helping hand 
in crafting this legislation.
  While I am thanking those who have helped in the formation of this 
legislation, I want to single out Mark Davis. Mark has joined my office 
as a congressional fellow from the U.S. Forest Service. I want my 
colleagues to know that it was Mark's efforts that ensured we received 
all of your requests, and all the requests were considered. He sifted 
through the request letters, organized your request lists, and tracked 
your staff down to make sure we had the information necessary to help 
us meet the desires of each Member and make some very tough decisions. 
I thank him for his service.
  Madam President, this has been somewhat of a difficult process. We 
were not able to fully meet the desires of every Member who offered an 
amendment to this bill. However, the chairman and I have attempted to 
remain fair while avoiding adding legislative riders that would slow 
the progress of this bill.
  It is imperative that this bill be moved through Congress and be sent 
to the President as soon as possible. It is now mid-July and we have a 
lot of work ahead of us.
  Again, I thank my chairman, Senator Byrd of West Virginia. I could 
not have asked for a better chairman as I enter the first year working 
on Interior appropriations. I thank him very much for his patience 
because he helped me through some of the rough spots. I thank him for 
that.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I express my heartfelt gratitude to my 
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Montana, who is the ranking 
member on the subcommittee of the Department of the Interior.
  I thank him for his very able representation of his people. I thank 
him for the consideration he has accorded to all other Senators as we 
have developed this bill, brought it to the floor and managed it 
together. I thank him for his equanimity, his very friendly and 
accommodating spirit. I thank him for being Conrad Burns. I thank him 
for the contribution he has made in the development of this bill in 
working with me as we have attempted to manage the bill and bring it to 
a conclusion.
  I thank our respective staffs on both sides of the aisle for their 
courtesies to us and to our colleagues. I thank our colleagues for 
their cooperation and understanding. I thank the leaders on both sides 
for the assistance they have given to us. I particularly thank our 
Democratic whip.
  I believe that Members will remember my taking the floor on many 
occasions to speak on the theme that the dog is man's best friend. 
Harry Truman said, ``If you want a friend in Washington, you better go 
buy a dog.'' Well, I believe that. Members often hear me extol the 
virtues of the dog. Not only can we say that a dog is man's great 
friend, but for those of us who have to manage bills on the floor, it 
has been my experience that the majority whip is the best friend that a 
manager of a bill can have.
  I have seen a goodly number of whips in my time on the Senate floor. 
The Office of Whip goes back a long way, into the 1600s, as a matter of 
fact, when it was said in the British Parliament that the whipper-in--
the individual who kept the hounds from straying from the field during 
the fox chase. In those days, whips were sent in the form of circular 
letters to members of the opposition, members of the King's party to 
northern England, and sent as far away as Paris, France, to tell 
members to come in on a certain day and be prepared to vote on a 
certain matter. That was the whip's job.
  The whip's position here has grown into an institution. During the 
early 1900s, during the first quarter of the 20th century, the offices 
known as majority whip, majority leader, minority leader, minority whip 
came into being. They are not constitutional offices, but these are 
offices that have been developed over the years.
  The whip system in the House is much more refined and more highly 
developed than it is in the Senate, not quite so highly developed as it 
is in the British Parliament. In our body, we do not have the whip 
system they have in the House, but we have an extraordinarily good whip 
in Harry Reid from Nevada.
  I was what I consider a good whip here for a good many years. I 
served with Mike Mansfield when he was majority leader. I was the 
majority whip, and I sat on the floor all the time. I never left the 
floor but a few minutes at a time. This whip, Harry Reid, performs that 
same function. He is on the

[[Page 13156]]

floor. He is helping Senators with their needs. He is helping the 
managers of the bills to arrive at agreements. He is helping the 
managers of the bills to reach time agreements on amendments once they 
have been offered. He does an extraordinarily good job.
  I express those compliments concerning Harry Reid. I think he is a 
better whip than Robert Byrd was. He has more patience than Robert Byrd 
had. I would say he has more political gumption than Robert Byrd 
probably had. He is a great whip. I salute him.
  I have no hesitancy at all in saying if somebody does a better job 
than I can do, I salute them for it. He does an excellent job. I thank 
him.
  He helped me and Senator Stevens on the supplemental bill. He has 
helped Senator Burns and myself on this bill. I thank him again.
  Madam President, we will be going to conference next week on this 
bill, and Senator Conrad Burns and I will, again, stand shoulder to 
shoulder with the other members of our team on both sides of the aisle, 
and we will be working with the House Members in an effort to bring 
from the conference a bill the President will sign into law.
  I merely wanted to express those few compliments, those few 
expressions of gratitude, and to say I am very glad that the Senate has 
reached the point now of finalizing the action on this bill prior to it 
being sent to conference.
  The Senate has now approved the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental 
appropriations bill and the first fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill, 
the fiscal year 2002 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. 
We have scheduled nine bills for action in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee during July and we hope to have Senate action on those bills 
before the August recess.
  We have a long tradition on the Senate Appropriations Committee of 
working together on a bipartisan basis to produce fiscally responsible 
and balanced appropriations bills. Working together with my 
distinguished colleague and good friend Ted Stevens, we have gotten off 
to a good start this year.
  The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill passed the 
Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 98-1. It totaled $6.5 billion, not one 
thin dime over the President's request. It is a balanced bill that 
approved most of the President's request for defense and included a 
number of other priority programs such as funding for Education for the 
Disadvantaged, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the 
Global AIDS program. It included no emergency funding. All unrequested 
items were fully offset so that we remain under the statutory cap on 
spending for fiscal year 2001.
  Today, we have approved the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations 
bill by a voice vote. We have exercised discipline. The budget 
resolution sets very tight limits on overall discretionary spending. 
And this bill stays within the 302(b) allocation that the 
Appropriations Committee approved pursuant to the budget resolution.
  In both bills we held the line. We stayed within our budgetary 
boundaries. We took a deep breath and were able to squeeze in between 
those narrow walls. But the walls are getting tighter. We have been 
given a difficult task. Much has been asked of us; a tremendous amount 
is expected when it comes to providing for the national need.
  We are attempting to conduct the people's business--to pass the 
thirteen bills that fund government in a timely fashion. The clock is 
ticking. We hope to go to conference soon so that this bill can be sent 
to the President before the August recess.
  The House and Senate Budget Committee are now projecting that we will 
be dipping into the Medicare surplus in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002 and that this trend is likely to continue for several years. 
This is taking place before a single appropriations bill has been sent 
to the President.
  I believe that this change in our budget outlook will result in very 
tight limits on discretionary spending over the next few years. I don't 
like it, it won't be good for America, but it is a reality. As we 
consider the fiscal year 2002 bills, it will be very important that we 
understand the long term consequences of our actions. We should not be 
taking actions this year that will lock us into long term costs. We 
have a long tradition on this committee for working together on a 
bipartisan basis to produce responsible bills, one year at a time.
  There will be a strong temptation to approve provisions this year 
that will mandate costs for specific programs in future years. We 
simply can not go down that road when we know that we are facing tight 
spending limits over the next few years.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the pendency of 
H.R. 2217, the managers be permitted to offer a managers' amendment; 
that once the amendment is reported, it be considered agreed to and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any amendments laid 
aside be modified and agreed to, as modified; that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that no further amendments be in 
order; that the bill be advanced to third reading; that the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action; that 
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House 
of Representatives, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I again thank Senator Byrd for his 
leadership on this legislation. We set a record for an Interior 
appropriations bill due to the chairman's leadership. Two days is about 
as fast as we have done an Interior appropriations bill. That is a 
great credit to his leadership. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any 
statements by Senators in connection with the bill be printed in the 
Record as though spoken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.A


      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--NOMINATION OF J. STEVEN GRILES

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the vote on final passage of H.R. 2217, the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the nomination of J. Steven Griles to be 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior; that the Senate immediately vote on 
the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action; that 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action; that there then be a 
period for debate regarding the nomination; and that following that 
debate, the Senate return to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to reflect that the 
vote occur on the nominee following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for no more than 2 minutes 
following the comments of the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. REID. I say under my own consent request, it is likely that the 
junior Senator from Florida will also want to speak. He has indicated 
that when we take our voice vote, he wants to be one of those known as 
having voted no. So I reserve some time for him, too, if he desires to 
come.



  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 976

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the managers' amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 13157]]

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Burns, proposes an amendment numbered 976.

  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 976) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all the pending 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 880) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 975), as modified, as agreed to, as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATION TO STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 101 of the Emergency Steel Loan 
     Guarantee Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51; 15 U.S.C. 1841 
     note) is amended as follows:
       (1) Terms and conditions.--Subsection (h) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2015''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Guarantee level.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), any loan guarantee provided under this section shall 
     not exceed 85 percent of the amount of principal of the loan.
       ``(B) Increased level one.--A loan guarantee may be 
     provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not 
     more than 90 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan, 
     if--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time 
     does not exceed $100,000,000; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage under this section with respect to a single 
     qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.
       ``(C) Increased level two.--A loan guarantee may be 
     provided under this section in excess of 85 percent, but not 
     more than 95 percent, of the amount of principal of the loan, 
     if--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage and outstanding under this section at any one time 
     does not exceed $100,000,000; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of loans guaranteed at such 
     percentage under this section with respect to a single 
     qualified steel company does not exceed $50,000,000.''.
       (2) Termination of guarantee authority.--Subsection (k) is 
     amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply only with respect to any guarantee issued on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.


                         indian health services

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention 
of the Senate the critical shortfall in Indian Health Service funding. 
The Indian Health Service is unable to provide basic health services to 
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We are failing to uphold a promise 
we made many years ago in federal-tribal treaties as well as federal 
statute.
  The Indian Health Service is tasked with providing full health 
insurance for American Indians and Alaska Natives, but is so 
underfunded that patients are routinely denied care that most of us 
take for granted and, in many cases, call essential. The budget for 
clinical services is so inadequate that Indian patients are subjected 
to a ``life or limb'' test. Unless their condition is life-threatening 
or they risk losing a limb, their treatment is deferred for higher 
priority cases; by the time they become a priority, there are often no 
funds left to pay for the treatment.
  I attempted to address this crisis by offering an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. The amendment called for a $4.2 
billion increase for the clinical services budget of the Indian Health 
Service. Seven of my colleagues cosponsored this amendment, which 
passed the Senate, but was not included in the bill that returned from 
conference.
  I again attempted to address this situation in the Interior 
Appropriations bill, but it appears that we will be unable to do that 
at this time due to the inadequate budget allocation facing the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee on how we might address this situation in conference and 
advance the goal of living up to our commitment to provide essential 
health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am happy to address that issue with the 
majority leader. Can the leader tell me what would be required to offer 
the basic health services we promised to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have estimates of the funding that 
would be required to provide basic clinical services to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget 
requests $1.8 billion for Indian Health Service clinical services. 
While this is an increase over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, it 
will not allow the Indian Health Service to meet the basic level of 
health needs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. For many years 
now, appropriations for the Indian Health Service have not even kept 
pace with medical inflation or population growth. The per capita 
spending on health care for each Indian Health Service beneficiary is 
only one-third of what is spent per capita for the general U.S. 
population. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Indian 
Health Service produce a tribal needs-based budget that calculates the 
true cost of meeting the health needs of Native Americans. According to 
these estimates, a $4.2 billion increase in the 2002 budget is required 
to meet the most basic health care needs.
  The impact of serious, chronic under-funding of the Indian Health 
Service is immense. The disparities in health outcomes between American 
Indians and Alaska Natives as compared to other Americans is appalling. 
Infant mortality is just one example. An American Indian baby is 50 
percent more likely to die before the age of one than a Caucasian baby. 
In some counties of my state, the infant mortality rate is 33.6 per 
1,000, more than 5 times the Caucasian rate. The same disparities exist 
for diabetes, tuberculosis, alcoholism, liver disease, and fetal 
alcohol syndrome, all of which plague America's native communities at 
rates far above the incidence for other Americans. Sadly, the mortality 
rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives is higher than for all 
races in the United States; life expectancy is the lowest.
  I know the distinguished chairman is concerned about these 
conditions, and I know that his efforts to increase Indian Health 
Service funding have been undermined by an inadequate budget allocation 
for this subcommittee. I certainly appreciate the severe constraints on 
the Appropriations Committee, particularly in light of the tax cut 
legislation recently enacted and the budget reestimates that indicate 
the projected budget surpluses are dwindling. Still, I hold out hope 
that, as he and the other conferees negotiate with our colleagues in 
the House, they can find some way to provide additional funding for the 
clinical services budget of the Indian Health Service. I would not make 
this request unless I were truly convinced that we have fallen far 
short on our commitment to provide health care services to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I assure the majority leader of my 
commitment to that effort. While we certainly will not be able to 
address all of the funding shortfall this year, I, too, am hopeful that 
we can find additional funds in conference to begin to address that 
shortfall.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am concerned that there are members 
of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians who are currently not 
allowed to

[[Page 13158]]

be provided with health care services under the Indian Health Services 
Contract Health Services program. It is my understanding that there is 
a procedure which would allow the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
to include the approximately 300 tribal members who reside in Ripley, 
TN, within their authorized service area.
  The Ripley community lacks the most basic health services. There are 
no resources for preventive health education and no access to either 
Indian Health Services or tribally operated facilities.
  The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has demonstrated a commitment 
to these tribal members by providing updated housing and other 
infrastructure and services. The tribe is currently constructing an 
appropriate health care facility at the Ripley Community. However, it 
is concerned that it does not yet have the authorization from Indian 
Health Services to provide those services.
  I am sensitive to the constraints in the Interior Appropriations 
bill, which did not allow an increase in the Contract Services Program. 
I am hopeful that we can work with our colleagues from the House of 
Representatives in the conference for this bill to find additional 
funds for this program, to increase the likelihood that tribal members, 
no matter where they live, will be able to have access to the health 
services their tribe can offer.
  Regardless of the funding situation, I hope that the Indian Health 
Services officials here in Washington, D.C., will review this situation 
and work closely with Chief Phillip Martin, the tribal council, and 
other officials of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to expand 
its Contract Health Services area.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Mississippi has my assurance that I will 
support his effort to assist the tribe in his State. I encourage the 
Director of Indian Health Services to pay particular attention to the 
request of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to serve its tribal 
members in Ripley, TN.


                      Atlantic Salmon Conservation

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, my colleague from Maine and I would like 
to engage the subcommittee chairman and ranking member if we may.
  Mr. BYRD. Please proceed.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my colleagues from West Virginia and 
Montana for the support they have provided in their bill for Atlantic 
salmon conservation and restoration efforts in our State. I appreciate 
their fully funding the administration's request for $597,000 in the 
Fish and Wildlife Management Account as well as their willingness to 
make $1.1 million available to the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation to carry out a competitively awarded grant program to fund 
on-the-ground recovery efforts for Maine's Atlantic salmon.
  Ms. SNOWE. I also want to thank my colleagues for their support for 
Atlantic salmon recovery. As the Senators know, the fiscal year 2001 
Interior appropriations bill provided the funding to establish the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic salmon grant program. 
The program, which has leveraged an even greater amount of non-federal 
money, has been extremely successful at identifying and supporting 
innovative projects that will help with the recovery effort.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Maine and 
commend them for the hard work they have done to secure resources to 
help with the Atlantic salmon recovery efforts in their State.
  Ms. COLLINS. In reporting its bill, the subcommittee originally 
provided $500,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's 
Atlantic salmon grant program. It is my understanding that, in 
increasing funding for the program to $1.1 million, the subcommittee 
continues to meet the administration's request for $597,000 in funding 
for Atlantic salmon recovery efforts through the Fish and Wildlife 
Management Account.
  Mr. BURNS. The Senator from Maine is correct. The subcommittee 
recommended an increase of $7,380,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management 
above the administration's request for this account. Of the $7,380,000, 
$600,000 has been reallocated as part of the manager's amendment to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's General Administration Account for the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic salmon grant program, 
bringing the total provided by the bill for this program to $1.1 
million.
  Ms. SNOWE. The money that was provided last year has been utilized to 
engage a wide range of stakeholders, including local community groups 
as well as aquaculture, agriculture, and forestry companies in 
cooperative restoration efforts. They have worked hard to aid the 
rebuilding process. It is a reflection of the strong commitment of 
everyone in Maine that we have far more projects being proposed than 
funding to accommodate them all. I can assure you that the money you 
are providing today will make a significant impact. I thank the 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for their courtesy and 
continued support.
  Ms. COLLINS. I also thank the Senators from West Virginia and 
Montana, and I look forward to continuing to work with them and the 
senior Senator from Maine to ensure that resources are available to 
assist in Atlantic salmon recovery efforts.


        funding for the urban parks and recreation recovery fund

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
clarify that it is the intent to seek additional funding for the Urban 
Park and Recreation Recovery Fund, UPARR, when the Senate Interior 
appropriations bill goes to conference.
  UPARR plays a vital role in supporting the last remaining green 
spaces in some of our most congested urban areas. This program takes a 
relatively small amount of federal funds and leverages them to make a 
substantial contribution to the development and improvement of our 
nation's urban parks, playgrounds, and recreational areas. For many of 
my constituents, these small pockets of open space are a vital part of 
their community. They serve as playgrounds for children, meeting places 
for adults, and areas for fun, recreation, and respite from the daily 
hustle and bustle of our Nation's most economically and socially 
stressed neighborhoods.
  I was pleased to see that the House included $30 million for this 
important program in its fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. 
This amount includes a slight increase over last year's funding levels 
and is consistent with the commitment made to this program last year in 
title VIII of the Interior appropriations bill.
  I was disappointed, however, that the Senate bill did not match this 
funding level. I realize that this lower level of funding for UPARR is 
related to the lower overall level of funding in the Senate bill. When 
the bill gets to conference with the House, I hope we can accept the 
House level. Is that the chairman's intent?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with my distinguished colleague from California 
that UPARR is a worthy program. If additional funds become available in 
conference, I shall be glad to consider a higher level of funding for 
UPARR.


                          sewall-belmont house

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues 
Senator Byrd and Senator Burns to work with me in conference on the 
Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the Interior Department 
provides funding for an important Capitol Hill landmark, the Sewall-
Belmont House.
  The Sewall-Belmont House has been a center of political life in 
Washington for more than 200 years. It was the home of Treasury 
Secretary Albert Gallatin from 1801 to 1813 and the only site in 
Washington to offer armed resistance when British troops invaded the 
city in August 1814. The building later became a beacon of liberty for 
American women in the 20th century as the headquarters of the historic 
National Woman's Party and home of the suffragist leader, Alice Paul.
  Congress provided $500,000 last year to begin much needed site 
preservation work at the Sewall-Belmont House. Funds will be needed 
this year to continue construction and ensure that this home remains a 
national treasure.
  Recognition of the Sewall-Belmont House as a nationally significant 
heritage site has dramatically increased as

[[Page 13159]]

a result of this preservation effort. Visitorship is steadily 
increasing, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation recently 
called the Sewall-Belmont House ``the most significant unrestored 
women's history site in the country.'' Again, I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to ensure funding for the continued preservation of 
Sewall-Belmont House.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my colleague and share her 
commitment to preserving Sewall-Belmont House. As my distinguished 
colleague from Texas is undoubtedly aware, it will be difficult to 
address the funding needs of all the worthy requests before us. 
Nevertheless, I look forward to working with her in conference to 
address the funding needs of this unique historic site.


auxiliary power units and portable power in the DOE transportation fuel 
                              cell program

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, fuel cells, a family of technologies 
that produce energy electochemically, without combustion, are being 
developed for a exciting variety of applications. Some of these 
applications were not contemplated in 1992 when Congress authorized the 
Office of Transportation Technologies to support development in a 
variety of product areas. To its credit, the department has attempted 
to keep pace and to provide the most meaningful support possible to the 
research, development and demonstration of fuel cells.
  My purpose today is to clarify the Senate's interest in two 
applications, auxiliary power units for motor vehicles and portable 
power. Auxiliary power units promise a substantial improvement in 
energy efficiency of vehicles of all types and may reach commercial 
readiness before complete fuel cell engine systems for vehicles. APU's 
might also encourage the development of fuel infrastructure and 
encourage consumer acceptance, readying the marketplace for fuel cell 
vehicles.
  Successful development of fuel cell portable power units will also 
accelerate consumer understanding and market acceptance. The 
manufacture of portable power units would yield important experience in 
manufacturing technology and the increased production volumes would 
have a direct benefit in reducing the cost of fuel cell engines and 
systems for vehicles.
  Is it the understanding of the distinguished chairman that these 
applications fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of 
Transportation Technology?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. The committee recognizes that vehicle auxiliary power 
units and portable power systems may be early commercial uses of fuel 
cells that would also develop infrastructure and experience needed for 
fuel cell vehicles, and considers these applications to be within the 
scope of the Office of Transportation Technologies fuel cell program.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.


                          Ohio Water Projects

  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
Appropriations Chairman Byrd and the ranking member of Interior 
Appropriations, Senator Burns. I want to briefly discuss with my 
honorable colleagues an important conservation and recreation project 
that is of great interest to me and request their favorable 
consideration of $5 million for this project in the fiscal year 2002 
Interior appropriations bill.
  Madam President, a few miles west of Ohio's State capital of Columbus 
flow two outstanding waterways: the Big and Little Darby Creeks. These 
two creeks are recognized as State and National Scenic Rivers for their 
crystal clear water, their abundance of wildlife, and their importance 
to many Ohioans as a source of high quality outdoor recreation. The 
Nature Conservancy has even listed these watersheds as one of the 
``Last Great Places'' in the Western Hemisphere. On more than one 
occasion, I have had the pleasure of visiting these two creeks. As a 
matter of fact, Mr. President, I spent a wonderful day canoeing on the 
Big Darby Creek earlier this week with two of my children.
  Since 1959, the Franklin County Metro Parks have been purchasing land 
from willing sellers along these two creeks as part of their Battelle-
Darby Creek Metro Park. The Park currently offers several recreational 
opportunities including a Streamside Classroom Education Program, a 1.6 
mile walking trail, and several canoe access sites. In addition to 
welcoming the thousands of visitors the park receives each year, the 
park's dedicated and highly trained staff are conducting important 
wetland and prairie restoration programs in the area. At this time, 
there are several potential purchases that could substantially expand 
the park and ensure the protection of the creek and increase public 
access opportunities. I have urged my colleagues on the Interior 
Appropriations Committee to provide funding for these purchases.
  I have discussed my interest in providing financial support for 
further expansion of the park with Senators Byrd and Burns and I 
appreciate their willingness to enter into this colloquy. I also 
appreciate their interest in exploring funding opportunities for this 
project through the fiscal year 2002 Interior appopriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have had the opportunity to discuss this 
project with Senator DeWine, and I rise today to assure him that I 
appreciate and understand his interest in this important project and 
will give it serious consideration during further consideration of the 
fiscal year 1902 Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I too have had the opportunity to discuss 
this project with my friend from Ohio. I share Senator Byrd's interest 
in examining potential funding opportunities to support this project.


                         Wolf Recovery Program

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise to commend Mr. Byrd and Mr. Burns 
on their leadership and hard work on this bill. The subcommittee has 
had to make hard decisions about scarce resources and has labored to do 
so fairly. They have made real efforts to make sure the taxpayer's 
dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. I have seen first-hand, 
and appreciate, their dedication to the integrity of this process.
  Would the distinguished gentlemen form West Virginia and Montana 
engage in a colloquy with me concerning the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery 
Program for the nonexperimental population of gray wolves?
  Mr. BYRD. I would be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.
  Mr. BURNS. As this program also affects my State, I too would be 
pleased to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. CRAIG. While I wish gray wolves did not reside in my State, they 
do, and they are not going away. Thus, I believe the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service must be pro-active and aggressive in addressing issues 
related to the monitoring of the wolf population and working with the 
affected States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to delist the 
population. The wolf population in Central Idaho is growing by leaps 
and bounds. As a result, permittees are faced with growing livestock-
wolf conflicts. In addition, private property rights are infringed as 
these conflicts occur on private property. Yet the permittee must have 
a Federal permit to address conflict issues on their own land. Last, as 
the population grows, management efforts have not increased at the same 
rate. I feel that these individuals should not be punished because the 
wolves were re-introduced into central Idaho.
  The subcommittee has worked to secure an additional $200,000 for the 
Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Program. I fee this additional money should 
be used to increase monitoring efforts and increase communication with 
potentially affected permittees, as well as, to focus efforts on 
defining and meeting criteria for delisting the wolves in central 
Idaho. I believe these funds should work to provide Idaho with 
flexibility in managing the wolf population to meet the needs of those 
most affected by the wolves.
  Mr. BYRD. I will work with Mr. Craig to see that these funds are used 
for monitoring of the central Idaho wolf population.
  Mr. BURNS. I agree with the gentleman from Idaho, these funds should 
be used to provide flexibility in managing the wolf population of 
central Idaho.

[[Page 13160]]




                Judicial Training in the Pacific Islands

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I would like to discuss with my 
distinguished colleagues, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
and the ranking member on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
need for judicial training in the Pacific Islands.
  I have been working over the past year with the judges of the ninth 
circuit, the circuit charged with overseeing the judiciary in the 
Pacific Islands, to help them secure the funds to conduct a needs 
assessment for the training of judges in the United States territories 
and Freely Associated States in the Pacific. That assessment has been 
completed, and has identified the need for more training programs for 
nonlawyer and legally trained judges.
  The judges of the ninth circuit have worked with the National 
Judicial College to design two separate one-year training programs for 
judges in the Pacific Islands. One is aimed at nonlawyer judges, and 
would be conducted in Pohnpei, the capital of the Federated States of 
Micronesia, in order to be the most cost effective. The second program 
would be conducted in the United States, and would be geared toward 
chief justices or presiding judges.
  These training programs are necessary to help Pacific Islands facing 
burgeoning populations and judicial systems that are not fully 
developed. The need for further training of these judges has long been 
recognized by the ninth circuit. This program has the full support of 
the judiciaries in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall 
Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
  If we are to expect these areas to be able fully and effectively 
enforce applicable laws, including traditional laws, then we must 
ensure that the persons who serve in the local judiciaries are fully 
trained. Of all the technical assistance programs that we provide to 
improve the operations of government, this particular program has the 
greatest potential for improving society and the quality of life in 
these islands.
  The cost of this 1-year program would only be approximately $100,000. 
I ask my colleagues' support in encouraging the Secretary of the 
Interior to support this effort.
  Mr. BYRD. I support the training of these judges and would be pleased 
to encourage the Secretary to support this effort as well.
  Mr. BURNS. I, too, support such an allocation by the Secretary.


                  don edwards national wildlife refuge

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to join the chairman and 
ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee to discuss an issue 
important to the State of California. That is the continuing funding 
for the acquisition of San Francisco baylands adjacent to the Don 
Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
  Since the early 1900s, more than 90 percent of California's interior 
wetlands have been lost to development and other land use changes. The 
property for purchase constitutes more than 13,000 acres of salt ponds 
at the edge of San Francisco Bay, which itself provides important 
habitat for more than 1 million birds per year. This purchase will 
increase the bay's wetland area by 50 percent.
  Mr. BYRD. I am familiar with this project. As I understand it, the 
owner of the land is asking for $300 million in Federal and State funds 
for the 13,000 acres. While, this may be a worthwhile endeavor, I 
question whether it will be possible to allocate such a large sum.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I understand the chairman's concern about the level 
of funding required to complete this purchase. I share his concern. I 
am personally working with all parties involved in the agreement in an 
effort to substantially reduce the federal share of the purchase price.
  I am concerned, however, that by providing no funding in the fiscal 
year 2002 Interior appropriations bill, the seller will be forced to 
seek other buyers. This would be a lost opportunity of historic 
proportions. It would be my intention to secure a small amount of 
funding in the Senate bill to keep the project alive as we move forward 
in appropriations process with the goal of increasing the project's 
appropriation should a more realistic price be negotiated.
  Mr. BURNS. As the Senator from California knows, funding for the Fish 
and Wildlife Land acquisition account has already reached its cap and 
any new funding would have to be offset from within the account.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am aware of the problem raised by the ranking 
member. To this end, I am willing to reduce funding for two California 
land acquisition projects--the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and 
the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge--by $250,000 each. I want to 
be very clear--I fully support these projects. In fact, they were 
included in the bill at my request. I intend to see that they are fully 
funded by the end of this process. However, due to the procedural 
necessity of providing an offset, the only way to ensure that all three 
equally important projects go forward is to make this reduction. Should 
the interested parties fail to come to an acceptable agreement over the 
San Francisco baylands, the funding could return to the San Diego and 
San Joaquin projects.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from California for this statement. 
With these assurances, I will support the reduction of funds at the San 
Diego National Wildlife Refuge and the San Joaquin National Wildlife 
Refuge, and the increase of funds at the Don Edwards National Wildlife 
Refuge.


                            jacob riis park

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to take a moment to thank 
Senators Byrd and Burns for their stewardship of the Interior 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. Their work on this bill will 
secure millions of dollars in funding to help preserve our Nation's 
precious natural resources, and I support their efforts wholeheartedly.
  My colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, and I would like to take 
a moment to engage our colleague in a colloquy.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague for his kind words and will be happy 
to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In 1905, New York City's officials entered into an 
informal agreement with the New York Association for Improving the 
Condition of the Poor, an organization co-founded by journalist Jacob 
Riis, to build a recreational facility for the relief of New York 
tenement dwellers. The resulting Riis Park, opened to the public in 
1936, provided opportunities for diversion to millions of city 
residents. The facility became part of the National Park Service's 
Gateway National Recreation Area in 1974, and nearly 30,000 people 
continue to visit this historic site every weekend.
  Over the past few years, I have worked with colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle, in both the Senate and the House, to try to secure 
funding toward the construction of a natatorium complex at Jacob Riis 
Park. This project is supported by the New York Landmarks Conservancy, 
the Historic Districts Council, and the Queensboro Preservation League, 
as well as the thousands of constituents who turn to this park as a 
resource for recreation opportunities every spring, summer, and fall.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, Riis Park serves an ethnically diverse 
population including hundreds of inner-city families, adhering to the 
ideas envisioned by Jacob Riis and carried on by City Parks 
Commissioner Robert Moses. By investing in this urban park, our 
government can ensure that it remains a viable resource for years to 
come. I stand in full support of funding for the Riis Park Natatorium 
Complex.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My colleague and I have an inquiry to make of the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from West 
Virginia. Both the House and Senate reports to the Interior 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 have included $4.13 million in 
National Park Service construction funding for rehabilitation of Jacob 
Riis Park. Would the chairman support the use of these funds for 
construction on the Riis Park Natatorium Complex?
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the remarks of the Senators from New York, and 
would support the use of these funds for such construction.

[[Page 13161]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I thank the 
Chair.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.


        Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service

  Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I first thank my distinguished 
colleagues for their leadership and superb management of this bill. I 
want to take a moment to express my support for a matter of great 
importance to the people of my State, specifically obtaining funding 
for land acquisition in the Chattahoochee National Forest. I understand 
that the $2,320,000 included in the Appropriations Interior 
Subcommittee report for that purpose will be used to purchase available 
tracts of land in, or bordering, the Chattahoochee National Forest in 
Georgia. I inquire of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and 
chairman of the committee, am I correct in understanding that 
$1,300,000 of that total is intended to purchase property at Mount 
Yonah near Helen, GA, with the remainder being used to purchase 
property at Jack's River near the Cohutta Wilderness and the Etowah 
River near Dahlonega, GA?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Georgia is correct regarding the 
committee's intent.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator for his inclusion of these 
worthwhile projects in the Interior appropriations bill.


  Technical Assistance for the New River Gorge National River Parkway

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to take a moment to ask the ranking 
member for his agreement to continue a program of importance to the 
State of West Virginia. The New River Gorge National River is a scenic 
whitewater river that flows through deep canyons and rugged terrain. 
The Congress has provided $125,000 annually for technical support and 
maintenance on the New River Gorge National River Parkway. Would the 
ranking member agree that funding for this purpose be continued within 
the National Park Service appropriation in fiscal year 2002?
  Mr. BURNS. I agree with the distinguished chairman that this funding 
should be continued in fiscal year 2002.


   North American Wetlands Conservation Act and Caddo Lake Institute 
                            Wetlands Project

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues 
Senator Byrd and Senator Reid for agreeing to work with me in 
conference on the Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the 
Interior Department funds the Caddo Lake Institute's wetlands project 
in east Texas through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
  Caddo Lake and its associated wetlands provide habitat for over 150 
species of fish and wildlife. It is one of only 17 wetlands in the U.S. 
that has earned the distinction of being designated a Ramsar wetland of 
international importance pursuant to the international wetlands 
convention signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Caddo Lake earned this 
distinction, in part, because the local community surrounding Caddo 
Lake spearheaded a long effort to convert the area from an army 
ammunition plant to a refuge for fish and wildlife. With that 
accomplished, the next stage of the effort is to secure North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act funding through the Interior bill for the 
Caddo Lake Institute so that it may advance the planned restoration and 
wetlands education work at the lake. The Institute has been the local 
voice and enduring champion for Caddo Lake.
  Mr. REID. I would like to be associated with the remarks of my 
colleague from Texas. I was fortunate to learn about Caddo Lake and the 
Institute's wetlands work at an April 10, 2001 Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on wildlife conservation 
efforts. The premise of that hearing was that national and 
international conservation goals stand a better chance of 
accomplishment if they are driven by the local community.
  Caddo Lake is a perfect illustration of that idea. At the lake, the 
local community organized the Caddo Lake Institute and then worked with 
the State of Texas and the federal government to further the 
conservation and educational wetland resources there. This not only 
implements important wetland conservation goals in the North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act and the Clean Water Act, but also the charge 
of the Ramsar Convention; that is, it implements both national and 
international conservation goals. Congressman Max Sandlin from the 
region testified eloquently about the beauty and value of the lake at 
my April 10 hearing, and I am happy to work with my colleagues to 
advance the important conservation and education work at Caddo Lake.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue, and 
will work in conference to encourage the Interior Department to 
continue the work my colleagues have begun by funding a Ramsar-based 
wetland science, site management and education program through the 
Caddo Lake Institute working in partnership with the Division of 
International Conservation and the National Wetlands Research Center.


                                 htirc

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the previous support the 
subcommittee has granted to the Fine Hardwoods Tree Improvement and 
Regeneration Center at Purdue University. The HTIRC is engaged in 
research problems and technology transfer related to the regeneration 
of fine hardwoods. It is a regional center emphasizing not only genetic 
improvements and silvicultural goals, but addressing wildlife and 
riparian buffer issues and providing information and outreach to forest 
landowners.
  In establishing the center, I worked with Dr. Robert Lewis of the 
Forest Service. The project has widespread support and is financially 
supported not only by the Forest Service and Purdue University, but by 
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and by a very wide variety 
of forest landowner, industry groups and foundations. It is designed to 
improve the quality of hardwood tree seedlings and to address the 
annual shortage of hardwood tree seedlings in the midwest.
  The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture view the center 
as an excellent example of cooperation between government, academia, 
and industry in addressing important issues concerning the regeneration 
of hardwoods. The proposed new forest biology building and laboratory 
complex will soon house eighteen Forest Service employees and would 
provide office space and high tech laboratories for these Forest 
Service employees rent-free and without any charges for maintenance or 
services over the lifetime of the facility.
  The total cost of the forestry complex is $27 million. Purdue has 
committed $20 million to this effort. The remaining $7 million would be 
derived from the Forest Service as its share of the cost to house its 
employees, who would receive office space rent-free and maintenance-
free over the lifetime of the facility. Based on a life cycle analysis, 
the Forest Service has concluded that this degree of cost sharing is 
fully justified and is in fact extremely favorable to the Forest 
Service.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including a provision 
in this bill that releases $300,000 in previously appropriated funds 
for the design and construction of this facility. Construction of the 
facility is planned to begin during fiscal year 2002 and the Forest 
Service share of that fiscal year's funding needs is estimated at $2 
million.
  Mr. BURNS. I understand the need for the project, and I appreciate 
the Senator's leadership and strong desire to bring this into fruition.
  Mr. BYRD. Senator Burns and I will work with the Senator from Indiana 
to see if we can find sufficient resources through the conference 
process to support the Forest Service's share of this worthy effort.


                   cane river national heritage area

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I express my sincere appreciation to 
the distinguished floor manager and chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee for support of my request to provide funds for the Cane River 
Creole National Historical Park and Heritage Area. This park, one of 
America's most

[[Page 13162]]

unique historical parks, is in Natchitoches Parish, LA, the seat of 
Louisiana's oldest settlement and home to one of the most interesting 
and unique cultures in the United States. It is my understanding that 
the committee report recommends $650,000 for the Cane River National 
Heritage Area.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Louisiana is correct. We were pleased to 
be able to recommend funding for this high priority of the Senator.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. With the Senator's forbearance, I want to clarify the 
purposes for which these funds are allocated. My request to the 
committee, and I assume the committee's recommendation, will continue 
funding for the Cane River Heritage Area at last year's rate of 
$400,000 for salaries, expenses and grants and will make available to 
the Creole Center at Northwestern State University $250,000 to support 
important research and documentation of Creole culture in Louisiana. Is 
this the committee's intent?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. In developing this recommendation the committee 
assumed funding for both these activities in the amounts the Senator 
described.


                        minnesota forest funding

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask consent to engage in a colloquy 
with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and of its Subcommittee on Interior. The 
purpose is to discuss two items in the bill which relate to the 
management and vitality of national forests in my state of Minnesota--
specifically, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests. The chairman 
and the subcommittee have done a very commendable job in the bill of 
providing needed funding for the continued multiple uses of our 
national forests. I would like to draw his attention to two provisions 
important to Minnesota.
  First, as my colleague knows, on July 4, 1999, both the Superior and 
Chippewa National Forests bore the brunt of a massive, once-in-a-
thousand years wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern 
Minnesota. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties, 
including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests, 
and it washed out numerous roads. The damage severely hindered the U.S. 
Forest Service's ability to responsibly manage both the Chippewa and 
Superior National Forests.
  The ``blowdown'' of trees created extreme risk of catastrophic fire 
due to the amount of downed and dead timber. Yet while the storm has 
changed affected portions of the forests for years to come and has 
created new risks and experiences for visitors and residents, officials 
from the Superior and Chippewa National Forests officials have been 
working with state, county, and local officials on storm recovery 
activities and planning to meet future needs. Key to that recovery is 
help provided last year in this bill. The Senate last year provided $14 
million for efforts that continue today. I was pleased to work with the 
chairman, and I still appreciate his support at that time.
  At the same time, there remains a dangerous fire threat in Superior 
and Chippewa, and the Forest Service plans to continue their recovery 
work there through fuel reduction, reforestation and general 
rehabilitation. The bill before us contains increased general funding 
for such management, recovery and rehabilitation, and I would seek my 
colleague's assurance that it is his understanding that an adequate 
portion of that funding will allow the Superior and Chippewa National 
Forests to continue their crucial efforts.
  Mr. BYRD. I am aware of the devastating storm that affected my 
colleague's state in 1999, and I was pleased to assist the Senator from 
Minnesota at that time. The recovery efforts begun with that funding 
should certainly continued as needed, and I believe the subcommittee 
intends that this bill will provide adequate resources to complete 
scheduled work in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. The second item I would like to 
mention is that both the Superior and Chippewa National Forests are 
currently working to complete their forest management plans. The 
existing plans for these two forests, last revised in 1986, guide the 
forests' multiple use missions and lay out goals for habitat 
protection, resource production, soil protection and other aims. The 
National Forest Management Act requires an update of forest plans every 
10-15 years. The Chippewa and Superior National Forests are now jointly 
revising their plans. This process allows efficient public 
participation rather than two parallel processes. It also provides 
greater consistency in resource management between the forests. 
Substantial public involvement has already helped develop the purpose 
and need for revising the plans, defining the issues and building a 
preliminary set of alternatives. The forests have ongoing consultation 
with four Minnesota Bands of Ojibwe, the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources, seven adjacent counties, as well as various 
interested stakeholders. The current forest planning work includes 
incorporating a required species viability evaluation initiated during 
2000. While the 1986 forest plans continue to provide direction during 
the revision process, with ongoing public involvement, a final 
environmental impact statement and revised forest plans are expected in 
next year.
  Again, I am seeking my colleague's reassurances that sufficient land 
management planning funds in this bill should be available to the 
Superior and Chippewa National Forests to allow for full revision of 
their forest plans?
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the Senator's attention to this issue. He is 
correct to point out the commendable work underway in the Minnesota 
forests. The Senator is aware that the President requested $70,358,000 
for land management planning in fiscal year 2002, while this 
Appropriations Committee has provided $70,718,000, an increase of 
$360,000. For that reason, I agree, and I believe the subcommittee 
would agree, that this legislation should provide adequate resources to 
the Superior and Chippewa National Forests to complete their forest 
management plans.


                ``Critical Energy Efficiency Programs''

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Bingaman, Boxer, and Dorgan, to state our strong support for 
critical energy efficiency programs within the Department of Energy. My 
colleagues and I have been working with the chairman and ranking member 
over the last few days to restore and fully fund these important 
programs. We believe that the proven efficacy of these programs merit 
allocation of additional funds.
  The Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, uses alternative 
financing vehicles, technical assistance, and outreach campaigns to 
make our federal agencies more energy efficient. Although this program 
uses only a small amount of federal funding, its energy reduction 
strategies save the U.S. government, and thus American taxpayers, 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This program has proven to be a 
great investment. The Federal government is the largest user of energy 
in the United States and FEMP has helped reduce energy use per square 
foot of floor area in federal buildings by 19 percent since 1985, 
resulting in cumulative savings of $6 billion since 1985. FEMP has also 
trained over 13,000 federal energy managers, assisted with the design 
of over 200 energy saving projects, and helped federal agencies make 
use of market-based energy saving performance contracts.
  These are the type of programs we must support, programs that provide 
a great return for our Federal dollars and keep returning those 
benefits year after year. These programs also lessen the environmental 
impact of the federal government, reduce our government's dependence on 
foreign oil, and leverage private sector resources.
  I also suggest expanding several successful, community-based building 
technology assistance programs. These programs provide technical 
assistance, demonstrations, training, and education to communities to 
accelerate the use of innovative and cost-effective energy 
technologies, strategies, and methods. One particularly successful 
example is the Energy Smart Schools

[[Page 13163]]

campaign that provides a comprehensive portfolio of energy efficiency 
technologies, and works directly with national, state, and local 
organizations that influence school construction and modernization.
  Let me share with you how Seattle Public Schools used this program to 
reap the extensive rewards of energy-saving retrofits. Through a 
collaborative effort involving Seattle City Light, Seattle Public 
Utilities, Puget Sound Energy, and the Bonneville Power Administration, 
dozens of Seattle public schools received lighting retrofits, water 
conservation measures, upgraded energy management systems, and 
education on how to use energy more efficiently. Combined, these 
efforts reduced the school system's annual energy bills by a third, 
saving 15.5 million kilowatts of energy. I urge the Department to 
commit these additional funds in the Western states that have been 
severely impacted by the electricity crisis.
  Because the budget allocation in the Senate is significantly less 
than the House, the Weatherization Program also has received less 
funding in the Senate than in the House bill. It is an effective 
program--for every one dollar spent, three are saved.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I appreciate the budgetary 
constraints that we must operate within for the Interior and related 
agency appropriations bill. We appreciate the chairman's assistance in 
increasing funding levels for these programs.
  Could the chairman of the Appropriations Committee inform me as to 
his intention with regard to increasing the funding levels of these key 
energy conservation programs?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree that these energy conservation programs are very 
important. If additional funds are available during conference, I would 
consider increases in these programs.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you for your support.


           restoration and maintenance of the arlington house

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns concerning the renovation and 
restoration needs of the National Park Service property, the Arlington 
House, across the Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery.
  Arlington House is uniquely associated with the historic Virginia 
families of Washington, Custis and Lee. It was built by George 
Washington Park Custis and was the home of Robert E. Lee until the 
Civil War. Over the years, Arlington House has become an integral part 
of the core monument area here in the Nation's Capital. Not only is it 
located at the center of the Arlington National Cemetery, but it is 
emblematic of the post-Civil War bond between North and South, Abraham 
Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are symbolically united by the Memorial 
Bridge which connects the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House.
  In recent years, the National Park Service has been unable to 
properly maintain the physical structure of Arlington House to 
safeguard its artifacts and collections, thereby causing many of the 
rooms in this historic house to be closed to the public.
  The National Park Service has identified the total funding 
requirements to restore Arlington House. It is my understanding that a 
minimum of $2.5 million is needed in fiscal 2002 to preserve this 
facility.
  I am aware that the chairman and ranking member were faced with many 
significant funding demands in this bill. They have done an admirable 
job to provide the maximum amount of funding available to preserve our 
nation's historic resources. I bring to their attention the significant 
needs of Arlington House and respectfully request that in conference 
with the House that this matter be given their attention.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his 
interest in the historic Arlington House. I am aware that funding for 
the restoration needs for the Arlington House was requested in the 
President's budget and I can assure the Senator from Virginia that the 
committee will carefully consider this important project as we continue 
to assess the maintenance and restoration needs of National Park 
Service properties.
  Mr. BURNS. I concur with Chairman Byrd and can assure the Senator 
from Virginia that the restoration of the Arlington House will receive 
our attention during the conference with the House of Representatives. 
We will make every effort to address the needs of this historic home.


                   THE FOREST SERVICE AND WILD FIRES

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President there is a serious crisis in my home 
State of Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, where literally millions of 
trees have been killed due to insect infestation. This is causing a 
major fire danger situation. Many homes and communities are at risk. I 
was very disturbed to learn recently that the Forest Service had 
initiated a prescribed burn near Seward that got away from them when 
the wind shifted. While fortunately the fire was contained before it 
damaged private property, this incident causes me to be concerned about 
the level of oversight the agency uses when burning in these very high 
risk areas.
  Mr. BYRD. I recall that my friend from Alaska mentioning this during 
the committee markup of this bill. I assure you now, as I did then, 
that I am ready to help in any way possible to be sure the Forest 
Service applies adequate oversight to its hazard reduction activities.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I just recently met 
with Chief Dale Bosworth of the Forest Service and expressed my 
concern. I asked the chief to promptly provide me with a report that 
addresses how communities that are at risk can be assured when the 
agency plans a prescribed burn, that all potential factors are taken 
into account, and the decision to initiate a prescribed burn has been 
adequately reviewed. I also asked the chief to insure that local 
elected officials concerns are accounted for before a burn is ignited 
and to look at naming a Forest Service official in each region who 
would be in charge of approving any burn plans. I have also provided an 
amendment that I understand is in the managers package that addresses 
the specific situation with the prescribed burn I just noted on the 
Kenai and other areas of high fire risk across the country. This 
amendment provides the Forest Service with the authority to use 
$15,000,000 of Wildland Fire Management funds on adjacent non-federal 
lands, using all authorities available to the agency under its State 
and Private Forestry Appropriation. These funds will be available for 
reducing fire hazard on adjacent non-federal lands and protecting 
communities when hazard reduction activities planned on adjacent 
national forest lands. The Forest Service assures me that portions of 
these funds will be used to protect communities on the Kenai Peninsula. 
I expect the Forest Service to strongly consider areas of the Kenai as 
candidates for the stewardship end results contracting, as specified in 
Section 347 of public law 105-277, and which the committee has amended 
to provide for up to 28 additional contracts.
  Mr. BYRD. I am pleased to include this amendment in the managers 
package and feel it will be extremely helpful in protecting communities 
from the threat of wild fire.


        smithsonian center for materials research and education

  Mr. SARBANES. Would the distinguished chairman yield for the purpose 
of a colloquy regarding language contained in the bill concerning the 
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield to my friend, the senior Senator 
from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I remain deeply concerned with the 
Secretary of the Smithsonian's decision to close a number of the 
Institution's scientific and research facilities, including the 
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE) located 
in Prince George's County, MD. It is my understanding that language 
contained in the bill would preclude any funds to be utilized for the 
purpose of closing SCMRE and the other relevant facilities without the 
approval

[[Page 13164]]

by the Board of Regents of recommendations made in this regard by the 
Secretary's proposed Science Commission.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is also my understanding that the bill provides 
sufficient funding to ensure that SCMRE's programs can continue at last 
year's level.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is again correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. For nearly 40 years, researchers and scientists at 
SCMRE have been leaders in the field of preservation research and 
analysis. They have contributed greatly to the conservation efforts of 
museums and institutions throughout the nation and around the world by 
offering training programs and technical assistance. I would like to 
quote from an editorial that appeared on May 8 in the New York Times 
that captures the importance of preserving this facility:

       . . . [C]aring for artworks, which can often be done in 
     museum labs, is far different from scientifically studying 
     how to care for them. Over the years, the Materials Research 
     Center has created an extensive store of archaeological data 
     based on its work on collections from around the world. It 
     makes no sense for the Smithsonian--the most remarkable 
     accumulation of objects on earth--to close a national 
     laboratory whose very purpose is to analyze the material 
     basis of its collections.

  I thank the chairman for his time and commend him for his leadership 
and assistance in this matter.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of the 
fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill for working with me to 
provide Forest Legacy funding for an important conservation project in 
the western mountain region of Maine.
  In drafting the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, 
the managers have demonstrated, once again, their commitment to 
promoting conservation. I am particularly pleased that the bill funds 
Forest Legacy at $65 million--the most that has ever been allocated for 
this important and growing program--and I am grateful for the support 
Chairman Byrd and Senator Burns have given to projects in my Sate this 
year and in years past.
  Neither the Interior appropriations bill that passed in the house nor 
the Senate bill voted out of committee included funding for the 
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue conservation project in the western mountain region 
of Maine. Because of the importance of this project to my State, I 
proposed an amendment to the bill to dedicate Forest Legacy fund to the 
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue initiative. Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns 
have graciously agreed to accept a modified version of my amendment, 
which will earmark $1 million for the project.
  The western mountain region of my State is a beautiful area that has 
long been valued for recreation, natural resources, scenic values and 
productive forest lands that fuel Maine's forest product industries. 
These traditional uses, which would be protected in perpetuity by this 
conservation project, are of tremendous value to the local communities 
and the region's economy.
  Recent changes in land ownership and land use has led to local 
concern that the character of the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue area will be 
permanently altered. This has prompted the State, local businesses, and 
conservation groups to promote a long-term conservation vision for the 
region that will prevent this forested landscape from being converted 
as a result of development pressures. Making this conservation vision a 
reality entails the acquisition of 31,240 acres around Mt. Blue State 
Park and along Tumbledown Mountain through fee and easement purchases.
  Funding the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue Conservation project will enable the 
State to protect critical properties adjacent to the park and some of 
Maine's most scenic areas--including Tumbledown Mountain, Jackson 
Mountain, Blueberry Mountain, and trailheads leading to these peaks. I 
would also proudly point out to my colleagues that Mt. Blue State Park 
is one of Maine's most popular recreation spots and was recently voted 
by Outdoor magazine as one of the ten best family vacation areas in the 
country. The area contains rugged summits, alpine ridges, and wetlands, 
as well as habitat for the federally listed bald eagle and one of 
Maine's only successful peregrine falcon nesting terrorities.
  I am pleased to say that several landowners within the project area 
are ready now to put their resource lands into a conservation plan that 
will permanently protect and allow public access to recreation lands, 
scenic areas, and trailheads leading up Tumbledown, while providing for 
sustainable harvesting on the more productive and less environmentally 
sensitive forested areas. This is a locally driven win-win approach to 
resolving the various concerns that arise out of changes in the region. 
I applaud the many individuals and groups that have invested time in 
bringing this project about. It is heartening to know how deeply they 
care about their community, and I appreciate having this opportunity to 
determine my support for their efforts.
  Last year, because of the generous funding level the Interior 
Subcommittee was able to provide the Forest Legacy Program, $1.17 
million was allocated to the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain project for 
the first phase of acquisition. This year, to complete the project 
another $4 million is needed. I am concerned that unless we make 
funding progress in fiscal year 2002 with the willing sellers now in 
place, Maine will lose a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect a 
truly wonderful resource.
  I want to thank very much the Senators from West Virginia and Montana 
for their willingness to work with me and Senator Snowe on this 
critical important project.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I would like to take 
this opportunity to commend an agreement that was reached with regards 
to the Landrieu-Smith amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. 
Simply put, the purpose of the amendment was to fix what is essentially 
a technical concern with the bill and improve the way that States 
received their portions of the $100 million. This would be done by 
utilizing an already established wildlife conservation fund and its 
formula parameters instead of creating a new program with a new 
formula.
  I do want to make it clear that I am extremely supportive of the 
funding that is provided in this Interior appropriations bill for the 
State Wildlife Grant Fund. I believe that these dollars will be of 
great benefit to State efforts to protect wildlife populations. I am 
especially pleased that the bill allows the States to determine the 
manner in which to utilize these resources.
  The Landrieu-Smith amendment would seek to use the Wildlife 
Conservation and Restoration Program, under the popular and successful 
Pittman-Robertson Program, that was established in the fiscal year 2001 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriation law. The law also provided $50 
million under formula apportionment to the States for high priority 
wildlife conservation, education and recreation projects. That language 
was included at my request because of my concern for equitable 
distribution of valuable conservation funds. In fact, I have recently 
introduced a bill--the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001, 
S.990--that would extend the authorization of that program through 
2006. The Landrieu-Smith amendment would allocate the $100 million set-
aside for the State Wildlife Grants Fund to the already established 
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.
  Adoption of our amendment would improve, and make more equitable, the 
way that these dollars are allocated to the States. Our amendment would 
allow for the allocation of funds under the formula established last 
year in the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program. Funding in 
that program is based two-thirds on the population of the State and 
one-third on the land area. It also guarantees that a single State 
would receive no less than one percent and no more than five percent of 
the available funds. This formula was supported by all 50 State fish 
and wildlife agencies as being the most equitable distribution to 
address conservation needs throughout the country.

[[Page 13165]]

  The Interior appropriations bill that was reported by the 
Appropriations Committee would have changed that formula. This would 
result in a considerable gain of funds for only 2 States, but a loss 
for 37 other States. To change the already established formula would 
compromise the ability of the majority of our states to effectively 
address their wildlife conservation needs.
  I am seeking to change back to what was established last year because 
I believe that is what is most fair to all States and already has their 
strong support. Regardless of whether or not our amendment was agreed 
to, New Hampshire's funding will not be impacted--to me it is an issue 
of fairness.
  It also makes much more sense to appropriate the $100 million to an 
already existing account with set allocation parameters that has 
demonstrated success than to create a new bureaucratic process. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife are agencies 
already familiar with the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program 
and could administer the program efficiently. Why impose a new set of 
criteria for allocation of the fiscal year 02 funds when the previously 
established criteria works so well?
  Through excellent cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the State fish and wildlife agencies, all 50 States have already 
qualified to receive their apportionment of the $50 million made 
available by last year's Commerce-Justice-State appropriations law and 
are in the process of submitting their project agreements. Adopting 
this amendment would have allowed this process to continue smoothly 
into the next fiscal year.
  I am pleased to support what I believe is a fair compromise to this 
amendment. The Interior appropriations bill that passed the Senate this 
evening reflects the changes in the formula that our amendment intended 
to make, without sending the funds through the Wildlife Conservation 
and Restoration Program. Even though the previously established account 
is not being used to distribute the funds, I am pleased that the funds 
will be allocated using a formula that all 50 State fish and wildlife 
agencies have agreed to as fair and equitable.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in favor of the Landrieu 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill regarding the 
distribution of $100 million in state wildlife grants for priority 
wildlife conservation, education, and restoration projects. As 
currently written, the Interior appropriations bill changes the way 
these grants are allocated to the States. The change would negatively 
affect the amount of grant money most states would receive.
  Last year, Congress established the Wildlife Conservation and 
Restoration Account as part of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
Restoration Fund. It was Congress' intent that funds from the account 
be distributed to the states through a formula based on one-third of 
the land area of a state and two-thirds population. Congress also said 
that no state will receive less than one percent or more than five 
percent of the total funding.
  The Landrieu amendment would distribute the funds under the same 
formula allocation that was enacted last year by directing them through 
the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
  All 50 State fish and wildlife agencies agree that the formula 
Congress enacted last year is the most equitable distribution of these 
funds. If we agree to the formula proposed in the Interior 
appropriations bill, 37 States will receive less money. Ohio would 
receive over $100,000 less than under the already established formula. 
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources supports the Landrieu 
amendment.
  With so many States facing such large reductions in the amount of 
grant money they would receive, it makes sense to distribute these 
funds based on the equitable formula that Congress agreed to last year. 
Support of the Landrieu amendment will ensure that the $100 million 
appropriated for State wildlife grants is distributed fairly and 
provides all states with the funds they need for their most critical 
wildlife and conservation projects.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in the managers' package is contained an 
amendment which provides for the repeal of section 819 of the Omnibus 
Indian Advancement Act.
  In my view, this is a matter that is more appropriately addressed in 
the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Accordingly, I intend to work with my colleagues to see that this 
proposed repeal of a section of authorizing legislation is removed from 
the Interior appropriations bill and addressed in the appropriate 
forum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this bill is the first appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2002 the Senate is considering. I am pleased to be 
a member of the subcommittee that has the responsibility for writing 
this bill each year.
  I have enjoyed working on the issues and programs that must be 
addressed each year during our hearings and the development of this 
legislation.
  The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have a 
major presence in my state. The levels of funding for their activities 
and responsibilities in Mississippi have a significant impact on our 
interest in protecting our natural resources and historic attractions.
  I'm glad the Committee's bill provides an increase in the funding for 
operation and maintenance of the Natchez Trace Parkway. The beauty and 
living history facilities of this parkway attract tourists and local 
visitors alike, and its completion has been one of my highest personal 
priorities.
  The Vicksburg National Military Park will be enhanced by the 
acquisition of the house used by General Pemberton as his headquarters 
during the siege of Vicksburg. Along with funding for a needed 
stabilization project, this commitment will enable the Park to continue 
to attract more than one million visitors each year.
  There are also funds in this bill to help pay the cost of 
acquisition, as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, of Cat 
Island, which is located in the Gulf of Mexico off the Coast of 
Mississippi.
  Other provisions of this bill allow the continued construction of the 
Franklin County Lake in the Homochitto National Forest which will be a 
very important recreational resource for the people of southwest 
Mississippi.
  An increase in funding is also provided in the bill as payments in 
lieu of taxes to counties that contain federal lands. This will help 
offset the losses that have occurred in many of these counties by 
changes in forest management policies of the U.S. Forest Service.
  The bill also includes $6.3 million for research programs that will 
be performed by the University of Mississippi and Mississippi State 
University.
  The National Park Service is also responsible for the operation and 
maintenance of the Natchez National Historical Park which contains some 
of the most interesting properties that reflect the lifestyles and 
cultural diversity of the early settlers in the oldest continuously 
inhabited town on the Mississippi River. The City of Natchez is also 
the southern terminus of the Natchez Trace Parkway.
  This bill contains funds for continued enhancement of the historical 
park which will enrich the experience of visitors to this unique 
educational resource in my state.
  Another interesting destination for visitors is the Corinth 
Battlefield in northeast Mississippi which was included in a list of 
the top ten most important Civil War battlefields by former Secretary 
of the Interior Manuel Lujan. It is located near the Shiloh National 
Military Park and will be the site of a new Civil War Interpretive 
Center. This building will be constructed with funds that are included 
in this bill at the request of our state's delegation in Congress.
  My colleague, Trent Lott, has taken the lead in making this new 
addition to our state's list of federally supported projects a reality. 
Congressman Roger Wicker has also been a key influence in the 
appropriations process on this project as well as the Brice's 
Crossroads site.

[[Page 13166]]

  Taken as a whole, the provisions of this Interior Appropriations bill 
will contribute to the economy of our state and at the same time help 
protect valuable natural resources, historic attractions and our 
environment.
  I appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the managers of the 
bill and my staff member, Ginger Wallace, who worked hard to help 
develop the provisions of the bill that were of specific interest in 
our State of Mississippi.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to support the Education and 
Training Center for the Power Generation Industry at Bismarck State 
College. Although funding for this program is not explicitly mentioned 
in the Interior Appropriations bill, I would like to see the 
relationship between Bismarck State College (BSC) and the Department of 
Energy grow during the next fiscal year as BSC builds on its 
Partnership to Improve Energy Technology Training and Education. Last 
year, BSC's Energy Technology Program received $50,000 in competitive 
Federal funding to develop a new curriculum based on conventional and 
advanced power technologies. Given that the Chairman has been kind 
enough to increase the budget request for fossil fuel research and 
development, I would hope that the DoE will provide the funds to expand 
this program next year, especially given the challenges that the power 
industry will face in the coming years.
  I applaud those at Bismarck State College who have been working on 
this project, and it is my hope that the Committee could provide some 
funding for this program as we move this bill to conference so that the 
College could further develop the curriculum plan and provide 
nationwide online courses in power generation management.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
have offered to section 107 of the Interior Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2002. The amendment is intended to clarify that under that 
section preleasing activities are prohibited, just as they are in other 
sections of the bill that restrict oil and gas development in other 
waters.
  Section 107 now reads as follows: ``no funds provided in this title 
may be expended by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
offshore leasing and related activities placed under restriction in the 
President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998.'' This includes the 
areas of northern, central, and southern California, the North 
Atlantic, Washington, Oregon, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 
26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 degrees west longitude.
  I want to stress that it is my belief that section 107 prohibits 
preleasing activities because preleasing activities are, by their very 
nature, related activities. However, sections 108, 109 and 110 create 
moratoria on offshore leasing for the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 
North Aleutian Basin and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and these 
sections restrict preleasing, leasing, and related activities. I am 
concerned that the discrepancy between Section 107 and these other 
sections creates the potential for legal ambiguity that may put the 
areas listed in Section 107 at risk. Specifically, it may be argued 
that a set of activities exists preleasing activities that are 
prohibited under Sections 108, 109 and 110 but not prohibited under 
Section 107.
  The simple, straightforward amendment I have proposed adds preleasing 
to the list of prohibited activities in Section 107. It would clarify 
Congressional intent and serve as a preventative step against any 
challenge to the meaning of the prohibition. It would do no more than 
clarify that California, the North Atlantic, Washington, Oregon and 
portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico have the same protections now 
provided to the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and other areas in 
Sections 108, 109 and 110.
  In closing I want to briefly discuss one reason why this amendment 
and the clarification it would provide is important to Massachusetts 
and New England. That reason is Georges Bank a natural wonder 
critically important to our state's economy and environment. Georges 
Bank supports Atlantic cod, scallops, haddock, yellowtail flounder and 
other valuable commercial species. Endangered species including the 
right whale, humpback whale and sei whale rely on Georges Bank and the 
surrounding area for feeding and as a migratory pathway. The National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with 
protecting marine resources, has warned that oil and gas exploration in 
Georges Bank threatens these commercial and endangered species. NOAA 
and others have pointed out that despite advances in drilling 
technology, exploration carries inherent risks from spills, other 
accidental releases, drilling muds, seepage and other sources. I 
strongly believe petroleum exploration in the unique and extremely 
valuable habitat of Georges Bank poses unnecessary economic and 
environmental risk.
  I want to thank Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns for working 
with me to secure the passage of this important amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and I have 
introduced the Kerry-Snowe Georges Bank amendment to the fiscal year 
2002 Interior Appropriations bill today to make absolutely certain that 
language in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill before us 
is modified to ensure that there will be no pre-leasing activities on 
Georges Bank. Language in the bill does prohibit the expenditure of 
funds by the Department of Interior for activities related to offshore 
leasing in the North Atlantic area, but I wanted the guarantee that 
pre-leasing activities would be out of bounds as well.
  Currently, both the United States and Canada have moratoria on oil 
and gas exploration until 2012 for the ecologically sensitive Georges 
Bank. What the Kerry-Snowe amendment does is include language in the 
Senate bill to prohibit any pre-leasing activities for the Georges Bank 
area, such as is included for the Mid- and South Atlantic. We are 
adding this language for the North Atlantic as well because of 
indications over the past few months that the administration could be 
considering legal and administrative groundwork for accessing Georges 
Bank.
  Report recommendations to the Secretary of Interior by the 
Subcommittee on Natural Gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 
included a recommendation that the Mineral Management Service, in 
consultation with industry and affected States, identify the five top 
geologic places for natural gas reserves in the moratoria areas, where 
industry would most likely explore, and where seismic data could be 
collected. Georges Bank is reported to be one of these prospects.
  Our added pre-leasing language for the North Atlantic area makes 
Section 107 of the bill consistent with Section 110 of the bill that 
does not allow Interior Department funding to conduct oil and natural 
gas pre-leasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-Atlantic and 
South Atlantic planning areas.
  As I recently wrote the President, I strongly believe that the 
moratoria should not be lifted on this 185-mile-long bank that 
stretches from Nova Scotia to Cape Cod--five-sixths of which is owned 
by the U.S. This broad, shallow fishing ground is one of the world's 
most productive, and current available natural gas reserves in the U.S. 
dwarf those which are projected to be available on the Georges Bank.
  I want to sincerely thank the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairs Byrd and Burns for accepting the Kerry-Snowe amendment as part 
of the Managers amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to support the Trails and Rails 
Program, a national partnership between Amtrak and the National Park 
Service. This program provides on-board educational programs to rail 
travelers. It has played a valuable role in educating Americans about 
the historic landmark sites in this country. This is an excellent 
outreach program that allows the National Park Service to reach non-
traditional visitors and introduce them to our national parks, trails 
and historic sites.
  I am particularly excited about this program as we begin to celebrate 
the

[[Page 13167]]

bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Last May, the famous 
footsteps of the Lewis and Clark along the trail in North Dakota and 
Montana came alive as their historic journey was retraced by guests 
aboard Amtrak's Empire Builder train. This program has been laying the 
foundation for the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, 
which will officially begin in 2003. Train passengers have already been 
able to explore historic areas along the Lewis and Clark trail such as 
the Union Trading Post National Historic Site in Williston, ND. It is 
my hope that the National Park Service could continue its partnership 
so that Amtrak passengers can explore other historic sites in the Lewis 
and Clark expedition.
  Although fiscal year 2002 funding has not yet been identified for 
this program, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important National Park Service partnership. I trust that some funding 
will be included for this partnership in the final version of the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the provisions 
in this bill that enhance the Steel Loan Guarantee program. The changes 
adopted today will provide invaluable assistance to our nation's steel 
companies as they strive to stay afloat in the face of overwhelming 
surges of finished and semi-finished steel imports.
  As you know, our domestic steel industry finds itself reeling from 
record import surges. Numerous companies are either in bankruptcy, have 
filed for bankruptcy, or are on the verge of doing so. On the Iron 
Range in my home state of Minnesota, for example, citing poor economic 
conditions, LTV Steel Mining Company halted production at the Hoyt 
Lakes mine, leaving 1400 workers out of work and affecting another 5000 
additional workers as well. These are hard working people who want 
desperately to work the trades they were trained for and have been 
doing for generation upon generation.
  The changes we are making today in the Steel Loan Guarantee program 
will make it easier for companies to access much needed capital. In 
particular, we are increasing the loan coverage for a portion of the 
loans under this program from 85 percent to 95 percent and extending 
the duration of financing from 5 to 15 years. These changes represent 
one component of S. 957, the comprehensive Steel Revitalization Act of 
2001 that I, along with Senator Byrd, Senator Dayton and others 
introduced earlier this year.
  I am pleased that we are taking the opportunity today to move a 
portion of this comprehensive measure. And I will continue to press 
this passage of the remaining elements of this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to comment on the Interior 
appropriations bill which the Senate has passed by voice vote. I am 
satisfied, that unlike in years past, this bill is relatively free from 
anti-environmental riders. I commend the chairman (Mr. Byrd) and the 
ranking member (Mr. Stevens) for producing a bill that is largely free 
from riders which many of my constituents view as an undemocratic way 
to address environmental issues. I have been pleased by the progress on 
this bill, and by the manager's efforts to allow important 
environmental issues the benefit of an up or down vote on the floor.
  Though the bill this year has been considered by the Senate with an 
improved process, I do have some concerns about a few of the bill's 
provisions. First, I understand that the Senate fiscal year 2002 
Interior bill includes $65 million for the Forest Legacy Program of the 
U.S. Forest Service, a program I strongly support. I further understand 
that, of the $65 million provided for the Forest Legacy program, $35.26 
million has been allocated by the Senate Interior appropriations 
Subcommittee in the committee report to fund specific projects. I hope 
that this allocation leaves approximately $29.8 million available to be 
distributed by the Forest Service to other priority projects, such as 
the Tomahawk Northwoods project in Northern Wisconsin. The Tomahawk 
project was specifically enumerated to receive funds by in the House 
report on the 2002 Interior appropriations bill, and it is my hope that 
the Senate's bill leaves flexibility so that this project can indeed be 
funded by the Forest Service.
  I also want to share my concern regarding section 330 of the fiscal 
year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. Section 330 extends for 50 
years a special use permit for a cabin located in the Absaroka-
Beartooth Wilderness Area in Montana. I hope that the conferees on this 
legislation will give serious consideration to removing this provision 
and referring the matters to the Senate Energy Committee for their 
review. My concern, as a Senator who is concerned about federal 
wilderness management, is that allowing the cabin to remain, without 
the benefit of review by the appropriate authorizing committee, could 
set a precedent that is contrary to the Wilderness Act, Forest Service 
policy and the Custer National Forest Management plan. It would be my 
hope that review by the Energy Committee would clarify whether the 
Montana State University-Billings indeed has the ability to apply for 
an extension of the special use permit that had been held by the 
cabin's previous owner.
  Finally, I understand that the managers' amendment contains language 
concerning the management of cruise ships in Glacier Bay National Park. 
Though I understand that this language represents a compromise worked 
out over the last few hours, I feel that an important policy matter 
such as this one would be better left to the authorizing committee. I 
believe legislative language which seeks to address serious legal 
issues over the reduction of cruise ship traffic required by Federal 
courts deserves full and fair consideration through proper hearings and 
review. I hope that the conference committee will give serious 
consideration to removing this provision.
  I am pleased to support this year's bill, and I hope to see a bill 
free from environmental riders emerge from conference.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been fortunate to be in this 
Chamber during the entire time the Interior bill has been debated. I 
would like to take a few minutes to commend the President pro tempore 
of the Senate, who is also the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, 
for the tremendous leadership he has shown not only on the Interior 
bill but on the supplemental appropriations bill we passed. It shows 
his experience and his dedication to the Senate. He has taken the helm 
of the Appropriations Committee firmly and has confidently steered this 
bill in the right direction. There have been very difficult decisions 
to make in crafting this bill.
  I also want to take a minute to express my public appreciation to 
Ranking Member Burns for the work they have done. If there were ever a 
bipartisan bill--and I hope it remains that way in the remaining hours 
of this bill, and I am confident it will--this is it.
  These two legislators have worked to come up with an appropriate 
package that has the best they could do with the tools they had, the 
limited amount of money they had, to satisfy hundreds and hundreds of 
requests from Members and from different entities making up our Federal 
Government. It has been a very difficult time. From a personal 
perspective, I think they have done exemplary work.
  About 4 years ago I asked President Clinton to convene a summit in 
Lake Tahoe. I did that out of desperation. I was at the lake and had, 
for 15 years, worked to try to do something to improve the quality of a 
place that has been called by Mark Twain the fairest place in all the 
Earth. It is a beautiful lake. It is a part of nature that you can only 
appreciate by being there; it is so absolutely fantastic.
  We had a show over here, and there is a display now in the rotunda of 
the Russell Building that has great photographs of Lake Tahoe. I spoke 
briefly there last night. A man by the name of Dr. Goldman, who is the 
leading expert on the ecology of that lake, spoke. He said he has been 
all over the world. He has been to Lake Baikal in Siberia in the Soviet 
Union. Lake Baikal has 20 percent of all the fresh water in the world, 
in one lake. It is well over a

[[Page 13168]]

mile deep. It is a beautiful lake. I am fortunate; I have been there. 
But Dr. Goldman said he has been to most all the major lakes in the 
world, and, by far, Lake Tahoe is the most beautiful.
  So I asked the President to convene a summit because I had not been 
able to accomplish what I needed. Out of desperation, I said to the 
press that I thought the only thing that would work is to convene a 
summit and have the world understand what a calamity is about to occur.
  I confided in the President that I had done this and asked if he 
would support me in this effort. He said: Yes, I will come to Lake 
Tahoe. And he did. It was not a photo opportunity. And that would have 
been more than I could ask, if the President of the United States would 
come to Lake Tahoe for a photo opportunity, but he did more than that. 
We had six Cabinet officers who held townhall meetings in the months 
prior to the President coming. Over 1,000 people participated in those 
townhall meetings when the summit was convened, with the President and 
Vice President there at Lake Tahoe, and the groups concerned about the 
lake--the environmentalists, the people who had wanted to build homes 
there, contractors, small businessmen, big businessmen, people who were 
against gambling, people who were for gambling. They were all there 
speaking from the same page.
  They agreed that something had to be done. So the summit--rather than 
being a boisterous affair where people were pointing fingers at each 
other--was a lovefest. As a result of that, we have been able to get a 
lot of help for Lake Tahoe. Part of that help is in this bill.
  This bill increased, by over 100 percent, the amount of money going 
to Lake Tahoe. Senators Feinstein and Boxer--and now Senator Ensign--we 
have worked together. We have made progress. But it all started as a 
result of that summit.
  I appreciate very much the attention of Senators Burns and Byrd, 
recognizing that Lake Tahoe really may be the fairest place in all the 
Earth.
  They have increased funding this year by over 100 percent. This 
commitment will help make the Federal Government a full partner in the 
ongoing effort to conserve this exquisite jewel of the American 
environment. California has done its share. Nevada has done its share 
by floating bond issues. Now the Federal Government is coming through.
  Chairman Byrd and ranking member Burns also helped improve the 
prospects for county governments throughout the entire West by 
allocating $220 million for PILT--Payment in Lieu of Taxes--Programs.
  I thank Senators Byrd and Burns for making an effort to breathe life 
back into the budget of the United States Geological Survey, which was 
treated very badly by this administration. The Bush administration did 
everything it could to kill the Geological Survey, this great 
institution of government. John Wesley Powell was the first leader of 
the U.S. Geological Survey, a man whose arm was cut off. The nerves 
were exposed and whenever he would bump it, it would hurt more than a 
person can imagine. With that bad arm, he led the first group to float 
the mighty Colorado. He was the father of the Geological Survey. 
Senators Byrd and Burns have breathed life back into this wonderful 
institution that is so important to our country.
  This agency has had a tremendously positive impact all over the 
United States. For example, the Presiding Officer traveled with me to 
Fallon, NV, to find out why we have children dying. Since we were 
there, one child has died. They have discovered two or three other 
cases of childhood leukemia. We went there seeking evidence as to why 
these children are sick and dying.
  One of the things being done about this is being done by the U.S. 
Geological Survey. They are testing water wells in Fallon as I speak so 
people in Nevada know whether the water they are drinking is safe. The 
U.S. Geological Survey is our preeminent scientific agency, some say 
the greatest scientific agency we have in Government. That is 
debatable, but they do great work.
  I appreciate the leaders of the subcommittee who recognized this by 
restoring the budget. The public land agencies funded by the Interior 
appropriations bill are of great importance to the State of Nevada: the 
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation. They do tremendous 
things for our country. I am grateful that Chairman Byrd and ranking 
member Burns have done their best to fund these agencies.
  I am confident we can finish this bill today. I hope we can. The 
managers have worked during the night, and staff members are still 
working to come up with a proposal to end this legislation quickly. 
There may be a few disputed matters to be resolved this afternoon. I 
wanted to spend a minute recognizing the great work done by the two 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER: The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2217), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House of 
Representatives and the Chair appoints Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bennett, 
Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Campbell, conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________