THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

The third major principle that has guided me in developing this bill really flows from the second. For years, I

[Page: S6316]  GPO's PDF

   As chairman of the Interior subcommittee, it has been frustrating to not be able to respond to such a pressing need in anything more than an incremental manner. But given the difficult spending constraints under which the committee has been operating for a number of years, it has been impossible to make significant progress on this issue without it being identified as a priority in administration budget requests. This year, however, the administration has responded to the pleas of my colleagues--a development that apparently was spurred by the President's recent visit to Indian country. The FY 2001 budget request includes dramatic increases for both new school construction and repair and rehabilitation of existing schools. While the bill before you does not provide 100 percent of the request, it does provide an increase of $143 million for BIA school construction and repair. This amount is enough

   to complete the next six schools on the construction priority list, as well as provide an $84 million increase for the repair and rehabilitation account. Maintaining these funding levels will be one of my highest priorities in conference with the House.

   Adhering to these fundamental principles while remaining within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation did not leave a great deal of room for other program increases. As a result, there is perhaps less in this bill for land acquisition, grant programs, and specific member projects than some would like. I think, however, that the bill reflects the right set of priorities. I have attempted to allocate available resources to the most compelling needs identified in agency budget requests, as well as to the particular priorities identified to me in the more than 2,000 individual requests I have received from Members of this body. I regret not being able to do more of the things that my colleagues have asked me to do, but want to assure Members on both sides of the aisle that I have made every effort to treat these requests in a fair and even-handed manner.

   While I do not wish to belabor the details, I do want to take a moment to point out a few highlights of the bill for the benefit of my colleagues who have not had a chance to review it closely. For the land management agencies, the bill provides significant increases for core operational needs.

   The bill provides an increase of $80 million for operation of the National Park System, including more than $25 million for increases in the base operating budgets of more than 80 parks and related sites, including the U.S. Park Police. These increases build on similar increases that have been provided for the past several years. The bill also provides an increase of $11 million for the National Park Service to continue efforts to research and document fundamental scientific information on the biological, geological, and hydrological resources present in our park system.

   For the Bureau of Land Management, the bill fully funds the request for noxious weed control, fully funds the budget request for annual and deferred maintenance, and provides an increase of $7.2 million for recreation programs. The bill also provides a $10 million increase for Payments In Lieu of Taxes, continuing the committee's steady effort to raise PILT funding toward the authorized level.

   For the Forest Service, the bill provides increases of $10.5 million for recreation programs, and provides level funding for the timber program to prevent further erosion of timber offer levels. The bill also fully funds firefighting preparedness, provides all the funds requested to address survey and manage issues under the Northwest Forest Plan, and provides increases over the President's budget request for both road and trail maintenance.

   For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill provides increases of $17 million for refuge operations and maintenance to continue efforts to bolster the Service's basic operational capabilities. The bill also includes increases of $15 million for endangered species accounts, and $5 million for law enforcement programs that have been flat-funded for a number of years.

   With respect to the cultural agencies funded in this bill, I am pleased to note that funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is increased by $7 million, and funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities is increased by $5 million. While these increases are fairly modest, they are indicative of the widespread support that these two agencies have within the Senate. The increases also reflect the degree to which the Endowments have responded to congressional concerns about the types of activities being funded, and the way in which project funding decisions are made. While last year we were not able to maintain the higher Senate funding levels in conference with the House, I fully intend to maintain the increases provided for the Endowments in the final FY 2001 bill. I will put the leadership of the other body on notice now that the Senate has no intention of receding on this matter.

   This bill also provides funding for a portion of the Department of Energy, including programs that support research on energy conservation and fossil energy development. This research is critical to reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, and to reducing harmful emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources. The bill provides targeted increases for the most effective of these programs. Of particular not is the $11 million increase over the request level for oil technology research and development.

   This program, which is designed to enhance oil production from domestic sources and to develop cleaner petroleum-based fuels, was inexplicably slated for a large reduction the administration's budget request. In light of the recent and alarming rise in the price of gasoline, such a reduction seems highly imprudent at this time. The bill also provides increases for research on cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, including additional funding for the Partnership for a Next Generation of Vehicles. This program was eliminated by the other body during floor debate--something which also seems imprudent in light of our growing dependence on foreign oil, and the potentially disastrous impact that rising oil prices could have on our economy.

   Among the many Indian programs funded in this bill, I have already discussed the high priority that has been placed on education programs. The bill provides increases for other Indian programs, however, including an increase of $143 million for Indian Health Services. This amount includes a $41 million program increase for additional clinical services, a $20 million increase for contract health services, and a $25 million increase for facilities construction and improvement. The bill continues the committee's efforts to help the Department of the Interior reform its abysmal trust management system. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Department is making a concerted effort to deal with a trust management mess that has been building for decades, if not the entire 20th century. This bill provides the full administration request for the Office of Special Trustee, which is charged with overseeing the trust reform initiative . The bill also provides an increase of $12.5 million for trust reform activities within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

   On a more parochial level, I would like also to talk about what this bill means for the people of Washington State. The land management agencies funded through the Interior Appropriations bill have a dramatic impact on the ecological and economic health of the Pacific Northwest. With more than 25 percent of the land in Washington State owned by the Federal Government, I have taken a special interest in assuring that we have the resources and policies that promote recreational and economic opportunities, and environmental preservation.

   In preparing the FY 2001 Interior appropriations bill, I focused on three

[Page: S6317]  GPO's PDF

   The salmon crisis has reached new heights in the past 6 months. While greeted by the good news that some returning Columbia River runs are at their highest levels in more than a decade, the cause of decline and the goals for recovery remain a mystery. The clash between local governments and the Federal agencies responsible for addressing the listing of these species has grown increasingly tense.

   Fortunately, most can agree that homegrown efforts to recover salmon will be the foundation for addressing the species' future. In this year's Interior bill, I have continued and increased the Federal Government's investment in funding volunteer salmon recovery groups that have the best track record for identifying and restoring crucial stream and river habitat for salmon.

   Increasingly, the role of fish hatcheries in the larger effort to restore naturally spawning runs of salmon has come under scrutiny. A group of key scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have joined forces to develop standards for the more than 100 hatcheries located in the State. I have secured funding to continue this effort to redesign hatchery practices and retrofit the facilities to ultimately enhance salmon runs rather than detract from the larger recovery goals.

   The Northwest continues to be a hot spot for recreation. Whether you are a day hiker from downtown Seattle or a back country horseman from Okanogan, all of us have a desire to preserve and enhance the recreation opportunities on our public lands . This year, I have focused my attention on improving camping and hiking opportunities in the Middle

   Fork Snoqualmie Valley and preserving the history of Ebey's Landing on Whidbey Island.

   Finally, the health and beauty of our public lands are assets we cannot ignore. The diversity of wildlife that resides in our forests, refuges and parks must be preserved in the future. I have dedicated funding to acquiring key tracts of land that will provide connective habitat in the Cascade Range. Our children deserve a clean Washington State, and the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill makes a strong investment in the public lands we depend on for ecological and economic stability.

   In the interests of expediting debate on this bill, I will not spend more of the Senate's time describing its many noteworthy features. I do, however, wish to make one final observation regarding the bill as a whole. The bill will soon be open to amendment. Any Senator may offer an amendment to move funding from one program to another. Some of these proposals I may support, as I do not claim to know all there is to know about programs funded in this bill. Many such amendments I will oppose, however, because I think the bill before you represents an appropriate balance among competing priorities. But whatever the case, the point is that the process of amendment is available to us--to all Senators.

   The administration's budget request includes a proposal that would greatly diminish the right of Senators to offer amendments to change spending priorities in this bill. The ``Lands Legacy'' initiative would fence off a significant number of the programs in this bill and provide a set amount of funding for those programs. An amendment to move funding from this Lands Legacy pot to other programs would not be possible. For instance, one could not propose to shift funds from Urban and Community Forestry to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, or from the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund to the National Park Service operations account. Regardless of what individual Senators might think about such amendments, to prohibit the simple offering of the amendment is absurd. That is why the committee has rejected the administration proposal entirely. And that is why this Senator is vehemently opposing efforts being made elsewhere in Congress to take land acquisition and a handful of favored grant programs off budget, thereby preventing the Appropriations Committee and the Senate as a whole from weighing the merits of those programs against the other critical--but sometimes less visible or popular--activities funded in this bill.

   On one further matter, I know several of my colleagues have inquired about emergency items that were included in the supplemental portion of the Agriculture appropriations bill, but which were not included in the supplemental title of the military construction bill that was sent to the President prior to the recess. This category includes funding for hurricane damage to National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilities, and funding championed by Senator GRAMS that would address a major timber blowdown in Minnesota and Wisconsin. While I can not now say exactly how we will address these issues, I want to assure my colleagues that this senator is committed to seeing that these previously identified emergency needs are addressed.

   Before I turn to Senator BYRD for his opening remarks, I want to state for the record how much I continue to enjoy working with him in putting this bill together year after year. He is a forceful and eloquent advocate for the interests of the State of West Virginia, as well as for the interests of Members on his side of the aisle and I may say, my side of the aisle. He is always cognizant, however, of the need to put forward a well balanced bill that adequately addresses the pressing national priorities that come under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. It is a great pleasure to work with him and his able staff. I also want to thank my own staff for the many hours they have put into this bill. It is often a grueling process, and I know I speak for all Senators in expressing appreciation for the work that has been done to get us this far.

   With that, I will only add the comment that I hope we will be able to deal with this bill relatively promptly and deal with it within the parameters set by the bill itself. I think it is not nearly as controversial a proposal as sometimes has been the case in the past. The House has, of course, already passed its Interior appropriations bill, and I have every hope we can finish our task relatively promptly and send not only an acceptable but an absolutely first-rate bill to the President of the United States.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to join with the distinguished Senator from Washington in presenting this bill. He is an extraordinarily fine chairman. I have chaired this subcommittee now for, oh, a good many years, but Senator GORTON is really one of the best subcommittee chairmen in this Senate. I say that without any hesitation. I have no compunctions about saying he is one of the finest chairmen with whom I have ever served in these 42 years in the Senate.

   I mean every word of it.

   I have found him always to be very courteous, very considerate, very cooperative; and he is this way with all Senators--not just with me but with all of our colleagues. I could not hope to have a better chairman than he. And if it were not for the honor that goes along with the chairmanship, I would just as soon he kept this. But there is a certain honor with it, so I look forward to the time when I will be chairman of the full committee and subcommittee again. But my hat is always off to this chairman, Senator GORTON.

   This is an important piece of legislation that provides for the management of our natural resources, undertakes important energy research, supports vital Indian health and education programs, and works to protect and preserve our national and cultural heritage. It is a bill on which Senator GORTON and I cooperate very closely on a bipartisan basis.

   We know no party in our relationship in this Senate. And that is said without any reservations whatsoever. There is no Republican Party, no Democratic Party where SLADE GORTON and I are concerned in working on this subcommittee. And I can say the same with respect to the full committee with respect to TED STEVENS, the distinguished Senator from Alaska. There is no party line in that committee.

[Page: S6318]  GPO's PDF

   The programs and activities funded under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee are treated in a fair and balanced way, as is customary for the annual Interior appropriations bills under the chairmanship of Senator SLADE GORTON. He is one of the best--if not the best--subcommittee chairman with whom I have had the opportunity to serve. The bill was reported unanimously by the committee, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

   I will not repeat the summary of the bill just provided by the subcommittee chairman, except to say that, as it currently stands, this measure provides $15.4 billion in new discretionary budget authority. This amount, while less than the administration's request, is nevertheless $628 million above last year's enacted level. The bill, as reported by the committee, has fully utilized the subcommittee's entire 302(b) allocation of $15.4 billion in discretionary budget authority. Consequently, to remain consistent with the Budget Act, any amendments that propose increased funding will have to be fully offset.

   So if any Senator has any amendment in mind that seeks to add money, that Senator or his staff, or both, should busy themselves about finding an offset because Peter is going to have to pay Paul in this instance. It is going to come out of somebody's funding, and I am determined it will not be mine. So I suggest that Senators look for an offset because they have to have it.

   In terms of total spending, the Interior bill is by no means the largest of the 13 annual appropriations measures. Yet, despite its relatively modest size, the Interior appropriations bill commands significant attention from Members of the Senate. As is the case every year, the subcommittee received more than 2,000 Member requests seeking consideration of a particular project, or account, or activity under the jurisdiction of one agency or another in this bill. All of these requests are very important to our colleagues and the people that they represent. Unfortunately, because of the constrained spending level under the allocations provided to the Congress, it is not possible to adequately respond to all of these requests. That is what makes the crafting of this bill so difficult. Trying to balance the specific needs addressed by the Member requests on one hand, while remaining within the budgetary allocations on the other hand, is an arduous task, indeed--not as arduous, perhaps, as the problem that Solomon had, but sometimes I wonder.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents