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      

In other words, I don't find those criticisms to have any particular merit whatsoever. This is our business. It is the business of this bill to see to it

[Page: S9916]  GPO's PDF

   sites and facilities of the United States of America are properly maintained. I think one of the great shortcomings, one of the overwhelming shortcomings that we have had in the last few years is that we have not been maintaining these sites to the extent they ought to be maintained. One of the goals, which I have accomplished in this bill, is to increase the amount of money for that maintenance, both in the regular bill and in this supplement to this bill that is the third item of controversy here today.

   This bill is criticized by the Senator from Louisiana as not including the full authorization for the so-called CARA bill, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act . She is certainly correct; it does not. That bill is an almost $3-billion-a-year entitlement for some 15 years, the net result of which is that the items included in it are deemed to be more important, should that bill pass the Congress of the United States, than saving the Social Security system, than education, than health care, or any of the other items for which we appropriate every year. In my view, it is utterly inappropriate as an entitlement that automatically comes off the top, before all the other priorities of the people of the United States.

   On the other hand, many of the items preferred in that CARA legislation are highly worthy items, items for which this subcommittee chairman is delighted to have what now amounts to a greater authorization. Many of them will be more liberally funded in the future as a result of the proposals that are a part of this bill now.

   It is said--it was said in that criticism--that this bill sends all the money through the Federal bureaucracy rather than CARA sending it directly to the States. First, it doesn't send all the money through the Federal bureaucracy. Many of these programs are existing programs that result in formula grants to the States, and others are competitive grants to the States. At this point, the Congress can, through its authorizing committees, change the distribution formula for any one of these programs, either to make them more direct or more focused. CARA, of course, doesn't send all its money directly to the States, either. It does include large amounts for payment to coastal States but they are for new programs which are not even authorized at this point and will not be unless some bill of that nature is passed.

   Second, this is criticized by some conservatives for not providing protections for private property. The Interior bill funds currently authorized programs. It doesn't authorize them; it funds currently authorized programs and therefore, by definition, includes every protection for private property that exists in any one of those authorizing laws. If there are shortcomings in this field, it is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee but of the very authorizing committee that presented CARA to us in the first place.

   For Federal land acquisitions that are funded by this CARA-lite, in future years everyone is going to be subject to the same process as is used at the present time. They are all going to go through appropriations committees. I can assure my colleagues, I cannot think of a case where this committee has approved a project that did not have the support of the relevant Members of Congress, except maybe for this one in Illinois, which has been the subject of debate for some 3 days. So that objection is simply not valid.

   It is also pointed out this bill does not provide States

   and local governments with a predictable funding stream. You bet your life it does not, and it was not so designed. Why should we give a predictable funding stream for grant programs to State and local governments in precedence to the very programs for which we are directly responsible? We do not have a fully predictable or legally enforceable funding stream for schools. We don't have it for most of our health care programs. We don't have it for research and development programs. We don't have it for a wide variety of the programs that are subject to debate every year. It is just for that reason that we do not have it. They should be subject to debate and revision with respect to priorities every year. That is why we have a Congress.

   On the other hand, this new title does provide a decidedly increased likelihood that these grant programs will be sustained and will increase in future years.

   What this bill does is to say that if you do not spend this money on the programs outlined in this bill, you cannot spend it on something else, but it will go to reducing the national debt. It is only a couple months. Members on both sides of the aisle vociferously were saying that a reduction of the national debt was the most important single economic activity in which we could engage. Chairman Greenspan was quoted constantly on the floor of the Senate. We forgot that when some decided we needed these ``predictable funding streams,'' that is to say, entitlements which come directly out of debt reduction.

   I have never been able to see the logic of a 15-year guaranteed funding stream that could not easily be adjusted if the programs were ineffective or if we went into economic times in which there were higher priorities.

   Those are some of the critiques of the particular proposal, additional portions of which are likely to be included in the appropriations bill for Commerce-State-Justice, particularly the oceans portions of it which will be debated later.

   Finally, Senator GRAHAM from Florida criticized the bill for not providing adequate funds for national parks. While CARA would have guaranteed an extra $100 million per year for the National Park Service--Mr. President, I am allowed to take time from Senator STEVENS.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. GORTON. The answer is, of course, CARA did not either. CARA gave money to the National Park Service above the line but

   not below the line, and very likely future Congresses will simply reduce the discretionary portion of that account by the amount guaranteed in CARA itself.

   It was at my insistence that this CARA-lite does include an item, I believe $150 million a year, for national park maintenance. I think that is one of the most important elements of the bill itself.

   The vote on cloture indicated the broad support for this bill, as did the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. For that overwhelming bipartisan support, I owe particular thanks to Senator BYRD for helping me in developing the conference agreement and shaping it in a way that merits the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. His new staff minority clerk, Peter Kiefhaber, has been a tremendous asset during the course of his first year. He has been ably assisted by Carole Geagley of the minority staff and Scott Dalzell, who has been with us on detail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

   I thank my own exemplary staff: Bruce Evans, who is sitting here with me, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Christine Drager, and Joe Norrell, as well as our detailee, Sheila Sweeney, and Kari Vander Stoep of my personal staff. All have also worked so many hours on this bill that I do not dare count them for fear of feeling ashamed. They have worked extremely hard, but they have been successful and have every reason to be gratified with their work.

   I note for the record this is the last year in which I will be privileged to work with my counterpart chairman, Congressman RALPH REGULA from the House of Representatives. He will have another subcommittee next year, and I tell you, I will miss him. I have never dealt with anyone in this body or in the other body with whom I have had a more positive and affirmative, constructive working relationship, often with a great many laughs because of his marvelous sense of humor. RALPH REGULA will have left a substantial legacy of increased priority for the maintenance of our Federal lands and facilities and a great approach in a matter of principle.

   In summary, this is a popular bill that has every right to be popular because it meets with many of the needs of deferred maintenance for past neglect. It has many projects in it that are of great importance to Members on both sides of the partisan divide in this body and our significant national priorities as well, and will get us through another year with respect not just to these natural resources used in energy

[Page: S9917]  GPO's PDF

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

   Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.

   Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second.

   The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. JEFFORDS) is necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. FEINSTEIN), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) would vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 13, as follows:

   Abraham

   Akaka

   Allard

   Ashcroft

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Bond

   Boxer

   Bryan

   Bunning

   Burns

   Byrd

   Campbell

   Chafee, L.

   Cleland

   Cochran

   Collins

   Conrad

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Enzi

   Frist

   Gorton

   Grams

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Hollings

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inouye

   Johnson

   Kerrey

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   Mack

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Moynihan

   Murkowski

   Murray

   Nickles

   Reed

   Reid

   Robb

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Roth

   Santorum

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Shelby

   Smith (OR)

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Thomas

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Torricelli

   Warner

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Feingold

   Fitzgerald

   Graham

   Gramm

   Helms

   Inhofe

   Landrieu

   McCain

   Sessions

   Smith (NH)

   Voinovich

   Feinstein

   Jeffords

   Kennedy

   Lieberman

   The conference report was agreed to.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

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