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      

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, I included language in this bill that directs the Department of Interior to finalize the so-called 3809 regulations, which govern hardrock mining operations on public lands, and to do so consistently with the findings and recommendations of a study completed by the National Research Council or NRC. The language is identical to

[Page: S9906]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. GORTON. I am glad to assist my friend, the senior Senator from Nevada. In clarifying Congress' intent in enacting these provisions. I agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year Congress adopted this requirement that Interior finalize 3809 rule changes only if they are ``not inconsistent'' with the recommendations of the NRC report I already described. Parsing this statutory language to the point of absurdity, the Interior Solicitor quickly wrote and circulated a legal opinion concluding that Congress intended by this action to require Interior's consideration only of material in the report specifically labeled as ``recommendations''--amounting only to a few lines of the report--and no other information in the report. And, he went on to conclude that this law imposes no significant limitations on the agency's ability to finalize its proposed 3809 rule. This year we have adopted the consistency requirement again, just as it was written last year. I ask the Chairman, did we enact the language again just to ratify the legal conclusion that Interior could finalize 3809 rules essentially without restrictions?

   Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act again this year just to ratify the actions of the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any final 3809 regulations promulgated be consistent with that report.

   Mr. REID. One last question that I have concerns a statement made by some of our House colleagues during House consideration of the FY 2001 Interior appropriations bill in which they suggested an interpretation of the ongoing rulemaking including broad discretion to deny mining permits, by redefining the existing statutory definition of unnecessary or undue degradation. Does the Chairman of the subcommittee who helped develop this language agree that our House colleagues are suggesting an interpretation that clearly goes beyond current law and that section 156 specifically states that nothing in this provision shall be construed to expand existing authority.

   Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House colleagues would require additional statutory authority which Interior does not have and is specifically denied by this bill.

   Mr. REID. I thank the Chairman for his help in clarifying the Committee's intent.

   U.S. FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FIRE RETARDANTS

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on an issue that affects the Forest Service and forest fire fighting in the West.

   Mr. GORTON. I would be glad to engage in such a discussion with my friend, the distinguished Chairman of Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service has announced its intention to move to gum thickened/sodium ferrocyanide aerially applied fire retardants in the 2004 bid process. The Service is to be commended for this initiative that seeks a more effective and environmentally friendly means to address the wildfires with which we have become so painfully accustomed in the West. Indeed, the Forest Service's own research shows that gum thickened retardants are 25-40 percent more effective than un-thickened retardants. The criteria called for in 2004, though, can be met today. Is it the Committee's view that the U.S. Forest Service should be striving for a more environmentally friendly product and should use such a product as soon as possible?

   Mr. GORTON. I agree with that view. It should be the U.S. Forest Service's priority to use the most effective, environmentally protective aerially applied fire retardants.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the after-effects of wildfires are devastating to the landscape. Mother Nature has a way of bringing life back to the land when all appears lost. However, even Mother Nature cannot erase for years the stains on the lands caused by some aerially applied fire retardants. This is especially of concern where historical and archeological resources, national parks, wilderness areas and urban/wilderness areas are concerned. Would you agree that U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option for local foresters to use less staining fugitive retardants where, in their judgment, it is warranted?

   Mr. GORTON. I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Forest Service has historically supported competition in the supply of fire retardants through the inclusion of a viability clause in its bids. For the first time, the upcoming 2001 bid process may be conducted by sealed bid. It is unclear whether viability will be a consideration. This is a critical issue in a fire season like the one we just experienced. Would you agree that the U.S. Forest Service should support competition in the supply of aerially applied fire retardants?

   Mr. GORTON. I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.

   Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for this clarification.

   GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT, PATERSON, NEW JERSEY

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator GORTON, about one aspect of the conference report.

   Mr. Chairman, the conference report to the Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 does not include funding for construction projects in the Great Falls Historic District, located in the City of Paterson, New Jersey.

   Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Great Falls Historic District was established in Section 510 of Public Law 104-33, the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legislation, which I coauthored, is designed to preserve the historic character of the City of Paterson, New Jersey. Like Lowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holds a prominent place in our nation's industrial past. Few people realize that Paterson was the first planned industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton himself chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory, and he established the Society for Useful Manufacturers right in Paterson. The work of its citizens and the wealth of its natural resources soon caused Paterson to thrive, and it became a mecca for countless numbers of immigrants, including my own family. The skills and spirit of these immigrants made Paterson one of our nation's leading centers for textile manufacturing, earning the nickname ``Silk City.''

   Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants through the Historic Preservation Fund for up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan for the development of historic, architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources within the Great Falls District. The Secretary may also provide matching funds for implementation of projects identified in the plan. The total federal authorization for the Great Falls Historic District is $3.3 million.

   Mr. Chairman, since the authorizing legislation establishing the Great Falls Historic District specifically enables the City to receive up to $250,000 in matching federal funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, the Secretary could provide these funds through the funds provided in the conference report for the Historic Preservation Fund.

[Page: S9907]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. This bill includes appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.

   Mr. BYRD. I concur with the Chairman that the Great Falls project is eligible to receive Historic Preservation Funds, for preparation of its plan.

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Great Falls Historic District would be eligible to receive up to $250,000 of these funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, and that, once these plans are completed, an additional $50,000 in matching funds is available from the Historic Preservation Fund for technical assistance and $3 million is available for restoration, preservation, and interpretive activities.

   Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the Mayor of the City of Paterson to the regional director of the National Park Service, expressing the City's interest in moving forward with development of the Great Falls development plan. I hope that this letter will confirm to the Service and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, that the City is fully prepared to provide the necessary match to develop the plan. I am confident that the City will work closely with the Service on development of a plan, and that, once it is completed, the City may apply for the remaining authorized funds for completion of specific projects.

   Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this matter, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be inserted in the RECORD.

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.

   There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   CITY OF PATERSON,

   OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

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

Re: Public Law 104-333.

   DEAR MS. RUST: This is to reaffirm our sincere interest in, and need of, the funding of Public Law 104-333. Ever since the authorization of the 3.3 million dollars for the Great Falls Redevelopment Act we have been anxiously awaiting the appropriation. We are committed to provide the necessary local match.

   The preparation of the Development Plan required by the Act is an essential first step in documenting the feasibility of a National Park. After the Plan, our two primary activities in the district remain to be the redevelopment of the former ATP Site including the Gun Mill and the rehabilitation of the raceway. Both projects are essential to the achievement of the economic development objectives of the Urban History Initiative. The initial Gun Mill stabilization has been successfully completed. We are awaiting the execution of the Programmatic Agreement so that we may continue with the engineering and other site preparation and stabilization work for the former ATP Site. The overall raceway and prioritization has been completed. Final plans are ready for the Upper Raceway section.

   We continue to pursue other sources of funding including TEA-21 Enhancement, the New Jersey Historic Trust, New Jersey Green Acres, and others. If these are not successful I will ask the City Council to bond any remaining local share. This is to assure you that we will secure the local match for whatever amount Congress appropriates.

   Very truly yours,

   Martin G. Barnes,
Mayor.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been a long time supporter of CARA--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act . The concept behind CARA was a visionary one--to take revenues generated from the extraction of offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest them permanently and automatically in our nation's invaluable wildlife, coastal, and public land resources.

   The CARA proposal that was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan way by the Senate Energy Committee offered an opportunity for this Congress to make an historic contribution to conservation and to truly leave behind a legacy that we could be proud of and from which our children would benefit.

   Instead, we are faced with a situation in which this overwhelmingly popular bill will never be considered on the Senate floor.

   The House passed its version of CARA back in May by an overwhelming vote of 315 to 102; it was a vote that brought in supporters from across the political spectrum and around the country. More recently, a letter signed by 63 Senators was sent to the Senate leadership requesting that CARA be brought to the floor.

   Yet the Republican leadership has refused to let this bill move forward.

   I ask my colleagues, what does it take to get a vote around here? How can we say that we are doing the people's business, if a bill that is as broadly supported as CARA cannot even be voted upon?

   We have now been presented with a package in the Interior appropriations bill that purports to fulfill the goals of CARA. I am tremendously disappointed to say that this package does very little to accomplish the goals of CARA.

   CARA would have provided nearly $45 billion to important conservation programs over the next 15 years. The Interior proposal provides roughly $6 billion and only makes those funds available for the next 6 years.

   But far more disappointing than the discrepancy in funding levels is the fact that the Interior proposal does little to guarantee that these funds will actually be made available each year for specific conservation purposes.

   Instead, the Interior proposal will force important and beneficial programs like Urban Parks and Recreation to battle against other important programs like the Historic Preservation program for funding each year.

   What made CARA remarkable was the fact that it would have provided the Urban Parks program, or state fish and wildlife agencies, or endangered species recovery efforts, with a predictable and reliable amount of funding.

   This feature would have ensured that important conservation efforts would NOT be subject to the uncertainties of the annual appropriations cycle, but instead could be certain that funding would be available over the long term. And as a result, these conservation programs could have finally planned and implemented ambitious, long-term conservation efforts. The Interior appropriations proposal fails to provide this sort of certainty.

   I will vote for the Interior appropriations bill. The bill funds many important programs that I care about and in making a nod to CARA it will provide some increased funding for things like the state's portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

   I am also pleased that the most egregious anti-environmental riders that appeared in earlier versions of this bill have been removed.

   However, I hope nobody will interpret my vote for this bill as a sign of support for what I view as a hijacking of CARA. I remain deeply disturbed that a bill that had the potential to do as much good as CARA will never see the light of day.

   Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise today to oppose the Conference Report to the Interior Appropriations bill.

   I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. The bill includes two projects that have been particularly important to me and for which I requested funding--the Lamprey River & St. Gaudens. I appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations Committee to provide that funding.

   Unfortunately, notwithstanding these and other good provisions, the bill fails to deliver what we as elected officials have promised the American people. I want to take this opportunity to explain, especially to my fellow Granite Staters, why I am voting against the Interior Appropriations Conference Report.

   First, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not include full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund or for the many important programs included in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act . In failing to provide this funding, I believe that we have truly squandered an opportunity that may never exist again. Even more importantly, I believe we failed to live up to the promise we made years ago to dedicate a percentage of the revenues from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, lands and waters.

   Congress came close to keeping that promise when the House passed by an

[Page: S9908]  GPO's PDF

   I am proud that I was able to play a part in bringing attention to the bill in the Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held a hearing on the Senate bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although that Committee, which I chair, did not have primary jurisdiction over the bill, I felt it was important to hold the hearing to help build support for the legislation and to highlight some of the very important programs that would be enhanced by the passage of the bill. These programs included funding for the Endangered Species Act and Pittman-Robertson Act , both of which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I said it then, and I want to reaffirm it today. Now is the time for the Federal government to step up to the plate and assist in the efforts to protect our natural resources--not by grabbing up more Federal land, but by working in partnership with States and private landowners and providing much-needed funding for critically underfunded programs. The CARA bill would have done that.

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