Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 693, S. 2812.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, July 24. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, from 12 to 1; Senator Thomas, or his designee, from 1 to 2.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, when the Senate convenes at 12 noon, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will turn to any available appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to be offered thereto, with any votes ordered to occur at 6 p.m. on Monday. I thank all Senators for their cooperation.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4008 to H.R. 4461, previously agreed to, be modified with the change that is now at the desk.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 682, H.R. 208.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, when my constituents ask me, what is the nicest thing about being a Senator, what do you enjoy the most, I have a ready answer: It is the people, the people we get to meet, the opportunities we have to interact with some of the most extraordinary individuals throughout the world. When I say that, my constituents immediately think of the great names: Presidents of the United States, Presidents of other countries, famous Prime Ministers. Schoolchildren look at me and say: Have you ever met President Clinton? They are always a little in awe when I say yes. Then others, when I tell them of having met President Gorbachev, President Mubarak, or Chairman Arafat or some of the other names they read about all the time, say: Well, we can understand why you think that the people you get to meet is the fun part of the job and the most extraordinary benefit that comes from being a Senator. And that is true--meeting these famous people is something of a trip and a great opportunity. I always explain to them that the great privilege is not only meeting the famous names. It is meeting my fellow Senators. This is an extraordinary body, filled with extraordinary individuals, many of whose names never get into the headlines beyond their own States or outside of the circle of the beltway, but who bring to this body an incredible background of wisdom, experience, humor, perspective, balance, and understanding that makes it a great privilege and blessing for the rest of us to be with them. Paul Coverdell and I came in the same class. We were sworn in on the same day. We went through the experience of being freshman Senators who didn't quite know our way around. We would get together on a weekly basis, those in that class, and swap stories about how we had foolishly gone to the wrong room, or lost our way in a corridor, or found ourselves buried in the unexpected tide of work, mail, phone calls, and requests. We went through all that together as friends. We decided, in taking advantage of our situation as freshmen and serving in the minority, we would use the time that comes with that condition--time which more senior and majority Senators don't have--to educate ourselves and prepare ourselves for the service on which we were embarking. Paul arranged a trip to Kennebunkport to see his good friends, George and Barbara. The rest of us didn't call them George and Barbara. It was Mr. President and Mrs. Bush. Paul knew them well enough, went back long enough with them, that he arranged for the freshmen class of Republicans to go up to Maine and spend a day with the Bushes. It was about 3 or 4 months after President Bush had lost the election. He was full of stories, reflections, and philosophic observations. It was a wonderful time. We also went together, under the sponsorship of Senator Dole, to New Jersey to have a similar day with President Nixon. Paul was one of those who would use that, and any other occasion, to learn as much as he could soak up, to prepare himself as much as he could for whatever might come. That was one of the delightful things about it. He was enormously curious, always searching, and always anxious to find out how he could be of greater help. We finally stopped meeting every week as we got busier ourselves and as we got a little more experienced in the way the Senate works, so that we didn't need to commiserate quite so much about our earlier blunders. But our class remained close. We gathered together when Kay Bailey Hutchison was under fire in Texas and gave a little party for her before she left for her trial. We told her we would keep things straight until she could come back fully exonerated, which, of course, she has done. Paul was a moving force in putting together that bit of solidarity among the members of our class. Paul is the one who moved on to a leadership position in our class. We were all proud of him, all happy to support him. It goes without saying that we will miss him terribly. But it is my conviction, Mr. President, that as we mourn, we do not mourn for Paul. I don't know the details of what goes on, but I think it is not out of the question to think that John Chafee may be showing Paul the ropes now, suggesting to him that ``it will work a little better if you go this way,'' or, ``Yes, I tried that when I first got here. Paul, let me show you the ropes.'' That may not be happening, but I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility. We do not mourn for Paul; we mourn for ourselves, for the loss we have sustained, not for the problems he faces. The problems he faced are behind him now, as far as this life is concerned. And, knowing Paul, he will be learning, inquiring, asking questions, trying to find out and progressing still further, as he always did as a Member of the Senate. It is our loss that moves us to tears--the fact that we will no longer have his companionship and his wisdom and his friendship. But just as I suggest John Chafee may be greeting Paul, we can be confident that whenever the time might be for the rest of us, Paul will be there to greet us, and that helps lift some of the gloom and sorrow we feel on this occasion. I extend to Nancy and other members of Paul's family my deepest sympathy and condolences at this time. And I express gratitude, once again, for the experiences I have had as a Senator of knowing great people, meeting extraordinary individuals, and partaking of their wisdom and guidance. I count Paul Coverdell in the first ranks of that group.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. As the Chairman knows, I am deeply troubled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies have moved very quickly to impose the land use controls recommended in the Recovery Plan, but have failed to undertake the basic tasks called for in that document to determine whether those land use controls are truly appropriate and are proving to be effective. I am speaking of three tasks: the desert tortoise monitoring that the Plan called ``crucial to determining if desert tortoise populations are stationary, declining, or increasing''; the desert tortoise population estimations that the Plan stated would be made every three to five years; and the Plan's reassessment that also was to be conducted every three to five years.

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to ask the Chairman a question about the language concerning the 1994 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan on page 18 of the report accompanying this legislation. It is the Chairman's understanding that the language refers specifically to certain tasks which the Fish and Wildlife Service committed in the Recovery Plan to complete by 1999 and, to my knowledge, have not even begun?

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator. Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho

Mr. BENNETT. One last point. To ensure that appropriated funds are spent wisely, I want to voice my concern that any methodology to be employed in conducting the monitoring be designed to permit correlation of the new data with the data gathered between 1980 and 2000. This will ensure that population trends, and the efficacy of programs and mitigation undertaken since 1980, can be determined.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of private property in Washington County, Utah. As some of my colleagues are aware, in March of 1991, the desert tortoise was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Government and environmental researchers determined that the land immediately north of St. George, Utah, was prime desert tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, nearly five years after the listing, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] issued Washington County a section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act, and a habitat conservation plan [HCP] and an implementation agreement were adopted. Under the plan and agreement, the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] assumed an obligation to acquire private lands in the designated habitat area to form the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the desert tortoise. One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental Land Technology, Limited [ELT], which had earlier acquired approximately 2,440 acres from the State of Utah for purposes of residential and recreational development. In the years preceding the adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed appraisals, cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, utility layouts, right-of-way negotiations, staked out golf courses, and obtained water rights for the development of this land. Prior to the adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the Federal and local governments would decide to set aside for the desert tortoise, although it was assumed that there was sufficient surrounding Federal lands to provide adequate habitat. However, in 1996, with the creation of the Red Cliffs Reserve, which included land belonging to ELT, all development efforts were halted. With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable Federal lands within the State that would be suitable for an exchange for its lands in Washington County. Over the last four years, BLM and the private land owners, including ELT have completed several exchanges, and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or direct purchases, nearly all of the Private property located within the reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development land. However, with the creation of the Grand Staircase National Monument in September 1996, and the subsequent land exchanges between the State of Utah and the Federal Government for the consolidation of Federal lands within the monument, there are no longer sufficient comparable Federal lands within Utah to complete the originally contemplated intrastate exchanges for the remainder of the ELT development land within the reserve. Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring these lands, BLM officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct purchase. During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds were made available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a matching basis for the use of individual States to acquire wildlife habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in extreme financial hardship for ELT. The development lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's main asset. The establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively taken this property from this private land owner and has prevented ELT from developing or otherwise disposing of the property. ELT has had to expend virtually all of its resources to hold the property while awaiting the compensation to which it is legally entitled. ELT has had to sell its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had to sell assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. It is now impossible for him to hold the property any longer. This situation is made more egregious by the failure of the Department of the Interior to request any acquisition funding for FY 2001, even though this acquisition has been designated a high priority. Over the past several years, ELT has pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition of these lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars pursuing both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all of these efforts have been fruitless thus far. Absent the enactment of this legislation, the land owner faces financial ruin. The failure of the government to timely discharge an acknowledged obligation has forced this private land owner to liquidate his business and personal assets and effectively carry the burden of a large portion of the Red Cliffs Reserve on his back. This is clearly not how the government should treat its citizens. The legislative taking bill that I am introducing today will finally bring this acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking should be an action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted legislative condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer all right, title, and interest in the ELT development property within the Red Cliffs Reserve, including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real property owned by ELT which is adjacent to the land within the reserve, to the Federal Government. It provides an initial payment to ELT to pay off existing debts accrued in holding the property, and provides 90 days during which ELT and the Department of the Interior can attempt to reach a negotiated settlement on the remaining value of the property. In the absence of a negotiated amount, the Secretary of the Interior will be required to bring an action in the Federal District Court for the District of Utah to determine a value for the land. Payment for the land, whether negotiated or determined by the court, will be made from the permanent judgment appropriation or any other appropriate account, or, at the option of the land owner, the Secretary of the Interior will credit a surplus property account, established and maintained by the General Services Administration, which the land owner can then use to bid on surplus government property. This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution for this private land owner. The time for pursuing other options has long since expired. I encourage my colleagues to support the timely enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about this amendment. My understanding is that the order is for an hour equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the amendment. I do not believe that time will be necessary. I certainly do not intend to take the time to explain all of the aspects of the amendment because I did so in a previous floor speech several weeks ago. I think, in the interest of moving things along tonight, I should just say to any who are interested in the issue to go back to my earlier floor speech, which was complete with charts and visual aids, and all of the other bells and whistles that we sometimes bring to the floor, and read that, and you will see how I feel about this amendment. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, had great concerns about the issue we are discussing. This amendment has to do with export licenses for technical material, most particularly computer material that might be exported in such a way as to allow some foreign power to gain a computer capability that would enhance their military power against the United States. Senator Thompson and I have been talking about this for weeks, if maybe not as long as a month or so, in an effort to find some accommodation to the concerns that he very legitimately raises about our national security and at the same time recognizes the reality of the marketplace, which is that these chips, if they are not exported from the United States, will get to the world market from Japan, Germany, Holland, and in one instance China itself. We would like to make sure the international market is as dominated by American chips as we can possibly get it to be, which is why we are trying to shorten all of the time connected with this. Senator Thompson, who has his own concerns about it, has been asking that we not shorten the period as drastically as this amendment would do. If I were offering the amendment entirely in a vacuum--that is, a legislative vacuum--I would like the amount shortened from 180 days to 30 days for the congressional action with respect to these items because I think 30 days is long enough. I point out, at the moment, if we are going to export an F-16 to some foreign government, Congress has only 30 days to comment. Some of these computers, to put it in the context of how rapidly things are moving, can be purchased at Toys ``R'' Us right now and be available for some foreign agent, if he wanted to come into the country, to tuck under his arm, walk through customs, go home to his country, and have a computer powerful enough in that toy that could do things that as recently as 3 years ago would seem miraculous. So I have abandoned my 30-day desires because of the very significant legislative situation in which we find ourselves. The 60-day requirement, which is in my amendment, has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415-8. I am told that if one comma is changed in the amendment that passes the Senate from the form in which it passed the House, it will run into problems in conference. So because I do not want it to run into problems in conference--I want it done--I have decided, as has the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, that we will forgo our desire for the 30-day period. We will endorse the 60- day period because that is in the House bill. Now, the Senator from Tennessee has some legitimate concerns about the way this is done. I have discussed with him privately and now pledge to him publicly that I will work with him to find a way to inject the General Accounting Office into the congressional review process, something that is not called for at the moment. It is entirely haphazard at the moment. GAO gets involved if some Member of Congress asks them to get involved but not if that request is not made. I am more than willing to say to the Senator from Tennessee that I will work with him to try to inject the GAO into the process, but I do believe that the proper and prudent thing for us to do tonight is to adopt the amendment in exactly the same language as it passed the House and thereby make sure it is not a conferenceable item and is something we will be certain will take place when the conference report is finally approved. With that, Mr. President, I have nothing further to say, unless other Members of this body want to talk about the specific merits of it. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his willingness to work out the essential elements of this and pledge to him again publicly, as I have done privately, that I will work with him to see that we do our very best to accomplish the goal he seeks. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back all time for the proponents of the amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk which I call up, amendment No. 3185.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. The National Council on Independent Living and individuals in my own state of Utah, are concerned about individuals with disabilities who reside in underserved areas. NCIL has proposed changing the formula for Centers for Independent Living, part C. Under their proposal, fifty percent of funding will be distributed equally among the states, and fifty percent will be divided among the states based on population. Instead of amending the Rehabilitation Act in this bill to permanently change the formula on this appropriations bill, I propose $5 million of the $10 million increase included in H.R. 4577, be divided equally among the states. The remaining $5 million would be distributed based on current law. Thus every state will receive a funding increase. In small states, this small amount translates to roughly $94,000. Based on letters and phone calls I have received, it appears that the coalition of Independent Living Centers across the country are amenable to this proposal--even the larger states.

Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate the chairman's consideration. It is my hope that we can reach an agreement that will increase the ability for Centers for Independent Living to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities not only in large states, but in smaller, underserved area. vocational rehabilitation

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman for including a $10 million increase for Centers for Independent Living, part C. However, because of the formula in current law, eighteen states do not receive any increase in funding. I understand that many of the smaller states have not received an increase since 1992. It is not my intention to change the funding formula in an appropriations bill, but I believe this problem needs to be addressed.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Ms. Loyal Clark, Public Affairs Specialist and administrator of the Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Program in the Uinta National Forest located in my home state of Utah. Ms. Clark has been instrumental in developing a model volunteer program that is clearly the largest in the nation, averaging 10,000 volunteers a year for the past decade. Ms. Clark has worked to ensure that the Uinta National Forest can accommodate and provide quality experiences for the numerous volunteer groups and individuals. When there have been more volunteers than available work, she has not turned them away, but has been able to direct their enthusiasm to adjacent forests and other state, county, and community projects. She is a key contact with the community, ensuring that volunteers know about opportunities and that they are matched with jobs they want to do. Ms. Clark developed and presented a proposal to the forest supervisor to establish volunteer coordinators on each of the ranger districts in the forest. These coordinator positions have helped to provide the necessary staff for the Uinta to manage its huge volunteer program and to complete millions of dollars worth of vital project work, increasing the effectiveness of the Forest's budget by as much as twenty to thirty percent. Ms. Clark has taken an active role to ensure various volunteers are recognized and rewarded. She has organized volunteer award ceremonies in the forest and actively ensures the nominations of volunteers for forest, regional, and national recognition. She is currently the team leader for the Uinta National Forest partnership team, which is active in pursing new partnerships with the forest while also maintaining its current relationships. She has not only made a difference in the Uinta National Forest, but has also visited many of the forest management teams throughout the Intermountain Region and shared her wealth of knowledge and experience in the management of effective volunteer programs. Because of Ms. Clark's career-long commitment to working with volunteers, the United States Forest Service recently presented her with an award for being the National Forest Service Employee of the Nineties. I congratulate Ms. Clark on her well-deserved award from the Forest Service. In closing, I am pleased to recognize and thank Ms. Loyal Clark today for her sustained efforts to enlist and encourage citizens to take ownership in their national forests and communities through volunteering.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000. I am pleased that my friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, joins me in introducing this important legislation. The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 granted to the state four sections, each section approximately 640 acres in size, in each 36 square-mile township. These lands were granted for the support of the public schools, and accordingly are referred to as school trust lands. The location of these lands, as they are not contiguous to each other, has made management by the state difficult. In addition, as school trust lands are interspersed with Federal lands, Federal land designations, such as wilderness study area, have further complicated the state's ability to manage its lands. The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 seeks to resolve these problems through an equal-value, equal-acreage land exchange between the state of Utah and the Federal Government. The lands that will be exchanged are located within the West Desert region of Utah. Each party will exchange approximately 106,000 acres. The Federal government will receive state lands located within wilderness study areas, lands identified as having wilderness characteristics in the Bureau of Land Management's Utah Wilderness Inventory, and lands identified for acquisition in the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan. The state will receive federal lands that are more appropriate to carry out its mandate to generate revenue for Utah's public schools. I would like to address two issues some have raised about this land exchange. The first issue is regarding land valuation. Both the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior firmly believe that this exchange is approximately equivalent in value. The parties have reached this conclusion after many months of thorough research and evaluation of the parcels to be exchanged. The process of research and evaluation included review of comparable sales, mineral potential, access, and topography. One may ask why each parcel of land was not appraised individually. The answer is that for many of the 175 state parcels it would have cost more to have appraised those lands than their agreed upon value. Please note that the average value of the school trust lands outside of Washington County is $85 per-acre; if each individual parcel was required to be formally appraised the high appraisal costs would place this land exchange, and all of its benefits, in jeopardy. Nevertheless both the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior have maintained their fiduciary responsibility by putting together a package that is equal, in both value and acreage. The second issue that has been raised is in regard to the LaVerkin tract. Governor Leavitt, in his testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Resources, stated: ``I want to assure you the state of Utah will be sensitive to local needs as this tract is developed, and will comply with, and participate in, local planning and zoning decisions. Also, you can be assured the scenic views at the entrance to Zion National Park will be protected to the maximum extent practicable,'' It is my hope that this commitment made by Governor Levitt will satisfy those concerned by the exchange of the LaVerkin tract. The Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act of 2000 is the result of over 12 months of negotiations between the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior. For too long the school trust lands in the West Desert have been held captive by neighboring federal lands, unable to produce the revenue that are legally required to for Utah's schools. This bill provides that Congress with an opportunity to reduce the state of Utah's holdings in Federal wilderness study areas and other sensitive areas while increasing lands that are more suitable for long-term economic development to the state of Utah for its school children. Additionally, the Federal Government will consolidate its ownership in the existing wilderness study area, which will allow for more consistent management. This bill is a win-win proposal, and the right thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation in the remaining months of the session.