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      

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.

   Instead, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes a mere shadow of the real CARA.

   Instead of providing full permanent funding for the Land and

   Water Conservation Fund, the Interior Conference Report appropriates only $600 million for one year and only $90 million of that is allocated for stateside funding. The CARA bill I cosponsored would have provided the States with a guaranteed $450 million a year to conduct numerous worthwhile conservation projects, including creating new parks and building soccer fields. The limited appropriation provided by the Conference Report, by contrast, with no guarantees for future years, isn't CARA; it's business as usual.

   The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors. Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches, shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans--94 percent believe we should be spending more money on land and water conservation .

   I agree with those Americans who believe that it's time to invest some of the budget surplus in our environment. For years now, we have been telling the tax payers that there isn't any money available for conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the burdens of saving our land and natural resources. Well, in my opinion, those days are over. It's past time for the federal government to contribute its fair share, and the Interior Conference Report falls far short in that respect.

   Second, I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Conference Report provides no protections for private property rights. CARA did. The real CARA bill provided an unprecedented level of protection for the private land owner. For example, the Senate CARA bill that I cosponsored expressly prohibited the federal government from using any CARA funds to implement regulations on private property. In addition, all Federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water Conservation Fund would have been subject to significantly more restrictions than under current law. Not one of those private property rights protections is included in the Interior Appropriations Conference Report.

   Third, I cannot support the language in the Conference Report that establishes a vague new Federal ``wildlife conservation program'' that imposes new, but undefined, obligations on the States and gives broad discretion to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to define those obligations. The Interior Appropriations Conference Report directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to create a new $300 million state grant program subject only to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations. That is inappropriate.

   The Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for overseeing wildlife programs; it is our prerogative and responsibility to review, discuss, and ultimately authorize any wildlife program. Yet, this new program was inserted at the last minute, behind closed doors, without any public debate or consultation with the Committee of jurisdiction. For that reason, I must oppose its inclusion in this Conference Report. The concept may be a good one, but this is not the right process or the appropriate vehicle.

   Finally, I must oppose the Conference Report because of the adverse impact it will have on thousands of citizens of New Hampshire who depend upon and enjoy the White Mountain National Forest.

   When the Senate passed its Interior Appropriations bill in

   July, it included an important provision excluding the White Mountain National Forest from this Administration's broad policy of prohibiting the construction of all new roads in previously undisturbed areas of national forests, the so-called roadless policy. We excluded the White Mountain National Forest from this ``one-size-fits-all'' roadless policy, not because we want thousands of miles of new roads in the White Mountains, but because these decisions should be made at the local level through the forest planning process, by the people who live near, enjoy, and use the National Forest.

   I have deep concerns about the Administration's roadless policy because I believe it is intended to limit public access and legitimate public use of our national forests. But even more importantly, in the context of the White Mountain National Forest, it would specifically override an existing forest management plan that maintains a balance between economic activity, recreation and environmental protection--a forest management plan that was developed through a collaborative process involving state and local government officials, local citizens, and federal officials. I firmly believe that States and local citizens should play a significant role in making the management decisions relating to the forest lands in their communities, including the decisions about roads.

   It was for that reason that I strongly supported the language that was included in the Senate bill that allowed the citizens of New Hampshire to make those decisions through the forest planning process for the White Mountain National Forest, rather than simply mandating a blanket roadless policy from Washington, D.C. That important provision, however, has now been dropped from the Conference Report. I believe that Washington D.C.'s roadless policy will hurt New Hampshire. It will have significant economic, social, and ecological impacts. And it will undermine the cooperative dialogue that took place during the revision of the forest plan. Therefore, I cannot support a Conference Report that does not include language protecting the White Mountain National Forest from unnecessary and inappropriate interference from Washington's bureaucrats.

   The Interior Appropriations bill passed by the Senate last July also included a specific exemption for North Country residents from the user fees that the National Forest Service charges for access to the White Mountain National Forest. That exemption has now been deleted.

   I have long been opposed to user fees in the White Mountain National Forest because I believe it is fundamentally unfair to local residents. In areas, like the North Country of New Hampshire, where the Federal Government owns much of the land, communities lose a significant portion of their property tax base which they need to fund schools and other necessary social programs and infrastructure. Residents in these communities then have to make up the shortfall. The user fee, on top of the loss in local tax revenue, imposes an unfair burden for local citizens. It is wrong for the Federal government to charge local residents in the North Country a fee for enjoying the White Mountain National Forest when they are already subsidizing the Forest.

   As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this Interior Conference Report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have done and appreciate the support they have given to important New Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I oppose the Conference Report.

   Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about two provisions of great concern to my

[Page: S9909]  GPO's PDF

   First of all, I want to make clear that I am disappointed that the full Conservation and Reinvestment Act , CARA, was not included in this Interior Appropriations bill. CARA, as reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is landmark legislation that would commit $3 billion annually for 15 years to conservation and natural resource protection. CARA would provide $37.4 million of stable funding annually to the conservation and protection of Minnesota's natural resources.

   However the compromise in this bill does not reflect the spirit or intent of the full CARA bill. First of all this Conference report does not guarantee multiple year funding for the states, which was the entire premise of CARA. When it comes to protecting our coastlines (on the North Shore in Minnesota) and open spaces (in Northern Minnesota), expanding our urban parks (in the metro Twin Cities area), or investing in wildlife conservation , the annual appropriation approach has proven not to work in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. In addition, the report does not include dedicated funding for wildlife conservation programs, which puts Minnesota's wildlife conservation needs in competition with other state conservation programs, and makes it possible that Minnesota would receive no funds for wildlife preservation from this legislation. While, overall I am encouraged that this legislation more than doubles conservation funding from the $742 million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 billion in FY 2000, we should not loose sight of the fact that this conference report is clearly no substitute for a full funded CARA bill.

   On a related matter, I am pleased the conference committee has restored the balance of the Forest Service's request for Minnesota's National Forests. During consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill, Senators GORTON and BYRD agreed to my amendment to include $7.2 million in additional emergency funds for Minnesota's National Forests. And today the Senate will take an important step that will restore the balance of emergency funds requested earlier this year by the Superior, Chippewa and Chequamegon National Forests' for blowdown recovery efforts.

   Furthermore, this legislation includes an important regular, FY 2001 appropriation for the Superior National Forest, that my colleague from Minnesota and I were able to work on together. These monies would be available to the Forest Service next year and are vital to continued recovery efforts in northern Minnesota.

   These national forests bore the brunt of a massive once-in-a-thousand year wind and rain storm that devastated parts of northern Minnesota on July 4, 1999. The storm damaged over 300,000 acres in seven counties, including as much as 70 percent of the trees in our national forests, and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests.

   The most troubling aspect of this storm for the people of northern Minnesota is the continued extreme risk of a catastrophic fire resulting from the tremendous amount of downed and dead timber. Funding provided to the Forest Service through this legislation will be used for immediate and future recovery efforts, and to reduce the threat of a major wildland fire.

   The storm has changed affected portions of the forests for years to come and has created new risks and experiences for visitors and residents. Since July 4th, the Superior and Chippewa National Forests officials have been working with state, county, and local officials on storm recovery activities and planning to meet future needs.

   Immediately after the storm the Forest Service, in conjunction with State, County and local governments began a search and rescue operation that lasted for 15 days from July 4 to July 19, 1999. Fortunately not a single life was lost in the storm, however there were 20 medical evacuations from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW. The most severe case was a broken neck. In addition, the forest Service conducted a search of 2,200 camp sights in the BWCAW to ensure no one was trapped. And finally USFS crews cleared approx. 200 miles of roads, and reconstructed 6 miles of emergency roads.

   Once the emergency search and rescue was completed, the U.S. Forest Service turned their attention to reducing hazards that could negatively affect visitors, residents and local businesses that depend on the BWCAW and the National Forests. The Forest Service brought in 191 people including an administrative team and several crews from across the country to return facilities to a safe condition so they could be reopened and used during the rest of the year.

   And now the Superior National Forest is proposing to reduce the risk of fire escaping the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, BWCAW, by using prescribed burning within the wilderness. The 1.1 million-acre BWCAW, located in northeastern Minnesota adjacent to the Canadian border, is one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the United States.

   The proposal is to reduce the increased risk of wildfire associated with the July 4, 1999, storm. The proposed action is to treat approximately 47,000 to 81,000 acres of the wilderness with prescribed fire over a five to six year time period.

   The goal of this project is to improve public safety by reducing the potential for high intensity wildland fires to spread from the BWCAW into areas of intermingled ownership, which include homes, cabins, resorts and other improvements, or across the international border into Canada. This will be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to ecological and wilderness values, and protects fire personnel and BWCAW visitor safety during implementation.

   While the Forest Service has been engaged in this work for many months, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the forest to a more normal and healthy state. However this cannot happen without adequate funding. This is a victory for all of Minnesota, and I am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased that the Senate approved the remainder of these badly needed funds today, especially for the people of northern Minnesota, who cannot wait.

   Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the conference report for Interior appropriations before this body today makes a significant investment in Wisconsin's only unit of the National Park System, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Lakeshore recently celebrated its 30th anniversary on September 26, 2000, and I rise today to express my gratitude to the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. GORTON) for working with me to ensure that some of the highest priority needs at the Lakeshore are met.

   I have been raising the need for these funds since 1998. On April 22 of that year, I introduced legislation, named for former Senator Gaylord Nelson who was the sponsor of the federal legislation that created the Lakeshore, to try to make sure that the Park Service has the funds included in this bill today. This bill helps to fund a wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act . Most of the Lakeshore is managed as wilderness, yet the required study has not yet been completed so that Congress can evaluate whether there is a need for a formal legal designation. This bill retains amendment language that I offered during the Senate consideration of Interior appropriations and provides $200,000 for that purpose.

   The bill also provides funds to the Park Service to protect the history Raspberry and Outer Island lighthouses which are threatened by erosion. The 21 islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have six lighthouses, the greatest number of lighthouses on any property in federal ownership anywhere in the country. They are all at least 100 years old, and many of them are still used as aids to navigation and are in need of Federal help.

[Page: S9910]  GPO's PDF

   By providing funds in this bill to ensure the success of the Lakeshore we contribute to another larger success--our efforts to clean and protect our environment and provide places for people to rest and refresh themselves. I have been very pleased in the willingness of the bill's managers to support my efforts to draw attention to this park. They have other, bigger parks that also have funding needs. But the managers understood my appeal on behalf of the people of Wisconsin with these funds. They know, as I do, that when the American people sit among the hemlocks on Outer Island, walk along the shore, travel to Devils Island, observe the waters of Lake Superior, they know protection of the Apostles is worth a federal investment.

   The investments in the Apostles are authorized investments, part of the requirements that we gave the Park Service when we created the Lakeshore. As delighted as I am that these funds have been included by the managers, I remain concerned about the fact that this bill provides funds and policy direction for unauthorized projects, authorizes new projects and continues to contain a number of policy riders that affect environmental protection. Because these riders remain, I will vote against the bill.

   I am concerned that this body is becoming habituated to the practice of environmental legislation by rider. This leaves Members of this body, like myself, who are very concerned about legislation which has the potential to adversely effect the implementation of environmental law, or change federal natural resource policy, with limited options. We must, by either striking the riders, or trying to modify their efforts, do the work of the authorizing committees on the floor of this body. With limited floor time on spending bills, and with the pressure to pass appropriations bills or risk shutting down or disrupting important Government programs, we do not do the best by the environment that we can and must do in our legislative efforts.

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