Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there are several provisions in this bill that result directly from the establishment of the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument. First, we have identified $300,000 within the amount allocated for the monument planning and decision making process. In FY 1999, $500,000 was provided to the two counties, and we anticipate that there will be funds available from the fee demonstration program that could return them to the FY 99 level. Additionally, we provided $100,000 to implement the ``Garfield-Kane County Partnership Action Plan.'' This action plan is the result of a process that began last year to help the counties and communities that have been most impacted by the monument designation. This is not a welfare program; this is to help them with reorganization leading to economic self-sufficiency. The Department of Interior, to its credit, has supported this effort and provided funds for a conference that was held in Kane County earlier this year. The conference was mediated by the Sonoran Institute. The conference report is the basis for the funding. The regional entities have formed a planning commission, the Partnership Task Force, and are talking with the Utah Five County Association of Governments (AOG) to establish a new and independent entity within that organization, which will provide administrative support and organization. Direction will come from a board composed of elected county and city officials from Kane and Garfield Counties and from portions of the Arizona Counties (Coconino and Mohave), which are north and west of the Colorado River. This also includes the Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation. It is my understanding that the BLM will fund the Partnership Task Force through the Five County AOG and will cooperate in developing recommendations for the partnership action plan and specific programs. I would ask the Chairman if it is his expectation that the agency will periodically report on the progress being made?

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his support. everglades funding assurances

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, a memorial service was held on Monday in Ft. Bliss, Texas, to honor five American men and women who lost their lives last week in the service of this country. On July 23, an Army airplane was reported missing over Colombia with five U.S. military personnel and two Colombians on board. The wreckage was located later in the week and days later, the Department of Defense confirmed the deaths of those on board. Coffins draped with the Stars and Stripes left Bogota, and were flown to Ft. Bliss Texas, a wreching reminder of the continued sacrifice made by American men and women in the Armed Forces and of course their families. One of the soldiers killed in the crash was Private First Class T. Bruce Cluff, a former resident of the city of Washington in my home state of Utah. Private Cluff served as one of 300 soldiers in a Battalion whose uniforms bear a crest that states ``Silently We Defend.'' Mr. President, because we cannot, and should not, allow the untimely loss of those in uniform to go unnoticed, I rise today to pay tribute to Private T. Bruce Cluff, a soldier killed in the line of duty; a soldier who received the Army Good Conduct Medal; a soldier who volunteered to risk his life for the protection of our nation and its defense against aggressors. T. Bruce Cluff was born in Mesa, Arizona, and as a member of the Boy Scouts of America, attained the rank of Eagle Scout at the age of 13. He graduated from Whitehorse High School in 1992, and served a two year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Montana. Private Cluff attended Dixie College in Utah and worked as a Computer Aided Draftsman before enlisting in the Army in 1997. He completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. In mourning Cluff's death and announcing his posthumous promotion to the rank of specialist, a statement from the Army read, ``His commander and NCO supervisors regarded his skills--as superlative. His can-do attitude and enthusiasm embodied the motto of his platoon, which reads, `Excellence--Nothing Else is Acceptable.' '' As a reminder to those of use who didn't know any of the soldiers personally, I share writings from George Washington which I believe shed light on a soldier's quiet commitment, and perhaps a tendency to forget what is asked of our men and women in uniform. The winter of 1777 was a bleak time in our nation's military history. George Washington, after his defeat at the Brandywine, established Winter Headquarters at Valley Forge. The soldiers were in rags, were sick and starving. Criticism of Washington from the Congress was loud, and spreading to the public. On December 23, General Washington wrote to the Continental Congress, explaining that ``no less than 2,898 men now in camp are unfit for duty, because they are barefoot and otherwise naked. He then addresses the criticism, ``But what makes this matter still more extraordinary in my eye is, that these very gentlemen--who were well apprised of the nakedness of our troops--should think a winter's campaign, and the covering of these States [New Jersey and Pennsylvania] from the invasion of an enemy, so easy and practicable a business. I can assure those gentlemen, that it is a much easier and less distressing thing to draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a good fireside, than to occupy a cold, bleak hill, and sleep under frost and snow, without clothes or blankets. Those of us who are in a `comfortable room by a good fireside,' should be reminded that the missions of the military are not comfortable nor are they easy. Even in peacetime, America has troops stationed all over the world, engaged in all manner of missions, and regrettably, none without threat. There will be few who know about the Cluff's loss. Specialist Cluff, to use his new rank, has not had his picture on the cover of any magazine. His life hasn't been the subject of wide media attention. However, his young wife who is expecting their third child, and his remaining two children, have lost a husband and young father. His siblings have lost a brother and his parents have lost a son. This country has lost a good soldier. It mourns with his family and honors his memory. May the Cluffs be comforted in their time of grief. As we remember them and ask God to watch over them and bring them solace, may we also remember the family members of the other military personnel who, with Specialist Cluff, made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 606) of the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives. Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 606) entitled ``An Act for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1485, which was previously adopted, be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives receives H. Con. Res 168 from the House, it be considered as agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until noon on Monday, August 2. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas for up to 30 minutes, and Senator Daschle, or his designee, for up to 30 minutes, beginning at noon on Monday. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, at 1 p.m., the Senate proceed to S. 335, regarding sweepstakes, under the previous order, with a vote to occur on passage of the bill at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, S. 1233, at 3 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, there will be an hour for morning business, to be followed by 2 hours for debate on the sweepstakes bill. At 3 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will resume the Agriculture Appropriations bill, and the next rollcall vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. Monday, August 2, on passage of S. 335. Additional votes could occur relative to the Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation which amends the Central Utah Project Completion Act. This is a simple bill and I hope my colleagues will support it. My father was elected to the Senate in 1950 and it was during that time that legislation was passed that created the Central Utah Project. During his 24 years in the Senate, my father fought to win the initial authorizations as well as provide the annual appropriations for the various projects. Were it not for the foresight of planners in the 1950s, Utah would be grappling with severe water shortages for both agricultural and municipal purposes today. In 1992, the Central Utah Project was reauthorized with the passage of the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (CUPCA). As part of the 1992 Act, CUPCA provided strict authorization levels for each project and program. Seven years after the passage of the reauthorization bill, planning has neared completion on these projects. During that time, we have learned several things. First, we are pleased that the District and the Bureau have saved money on other projects authorized under CUPCA. At the same time, many of us were surprised how successful the water conservation activities have been. They have been so successful that it appears we are on track to reach the authorized funding in the near future. We have also learned that the acquisition of water rights and instream flows are inadequate in other areas. Recognizing that there are shortfalls in some areas and significant savings achieved in other areas, this legislation simply amends the current law to permit the use of savings achieved in certain areas to be spent on other projects and programs where needed. By doing so, we can ensure that the projects can be completed in a timely and cost- effective manner. By passing this legislation we can continue the progress made in completing the Central Utah Project. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and I look forward to working with the members of the Energy Committee to bring it to the floor for consideration.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I shall try to stay out of the more contentious part of this debate. But there is a point I think I have to make which has to do with the whole health care issue. That is, the health care system in this country is based on employer choice, not individual choice. I have spoken out against that. I did it during the debate on the Clintons' health care program. I have not made much headway, but this debate gives me the opportunity to point out, once again, that the benefits in a health care plan are always determined by the employer and not by the employee. During the debate over the Clinton health care plan, people would say we should give everybody the same plan that you Senators have. I responded by saying I wish I had the same plan I had before I came to the Senate because I worked for an employer who gave me a better deal than the health care plan adopted by the Federal Government. I happened to be the CEO of that company. I, therefore, had something to say about what that deal would be. I know of health care plans that deny pregnancy benefits. I would not want to work in such a place, having fathered six children. I took great advantage of the pregnancy benefits. But an employer could say and does often say: We can't afford pregnancy benefits. If you are going to have a baby, you are going to have to pay for it yourself. Fortunately, during the period of time when I had no health care coverage because my employer could not afford it, we did not have any children. We had our six children under plans that provided pregnancy benefits. But it is not unusual for benefits to vary from company to company, from employer to employer, and for the employer to make the decision. The decision will be made on the basis of the conscience of individual Senators. But let us understand that as the employers of Federal employees, we are not engaged in any unusual activity to make a decision as to which procedures will be covered and which will not, and there are a whole host of procedures in the Government health care plan that are not covered for which other plans pay. That is the way the system works. I would like to change the system and give the individual the right to control those dollars absolutely, but I know of no program under our current tax laws where that is done, except in the case of the self-employed. Unfortunately, within this Chamber, we have made the decision not to allow the self-employed to deduct the entire cost of that decision. I add those particular facts to this debate, trying to stay out of the more emotional side of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator from Ohio yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a managers' amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is on her way to the floor. I will wait until she is here to express to the entire Senate my appreciation for her assistance as the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of Appropriations. I have been delighted to have the opportunity to work with her on this legislation and I will make that clear when she arrives. I understand she is in another committee meeting, and in the pattern of the Senate, finds herself torn between two equally important responsibilities. That is a situation with which we are all familiar. I will, for the information of Senators, point out that the legislative branch bill provides $1.68 billion in budget authority, exclusive of House items, for fiscal year 2000. This is $114 million or 6.4 percent less than the fiscal 1999 level. It represents $105 million or a 5.9-percent decrease from the President's budget request. So in this time of difficulty, we are coming in below last year's spending and below where the President recommended. There are increases in the bill, of course. There always will be in an appropriations bill. You cut some places, and you increase others. The majority of the increases in the bill account for cost-of-living adjustments only, and they are estimated at 4.4 percent across the board. The Senate portion of the bill increases funding for the Senate by only 3 percent above the fiscal 1999 level, which is less than the 4.4- percent COLA adjustment. So while the Senate portion of the bill is going up, it is going up less than the mandatory COLA that is required by law. The bill funds 79 percent of the budget request of the Architect of the Capitol. Of the funds provided, 73 percent will fund operations, with the other 27 percent to fund Capitol projects. I have always been one who has insisted on funding Capitol projects. As a businessman, I know that sometimes the most expensive savings you can achieve are savings that you take in the name of maintenance deferral. As things begin to deteriorate around the Capitol, it is tempting to say we can put it off for another year and look good in the short term. All you do when you do that is raise your costs in the long term. So throughout my tenure on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee and particularly my tenure as the chairman of that subcommittee, I have always been a champion of funding the Capitol projects and funding the maintenance projects to their fullest level, believing that in the long run that saves money. Why then am I standing here today and saying that we are not going to do that in this bill, and we are not giving the Architect of the Capitol the funds that were requested? Well, there are several reasons for that. I think it is worth an explanation. The subcommittee did not fund the Architect's request for $28 million for Capitol dome renovations. I have been in the Capitol dome with the Architect of the Capitol, and I have seen firsthand how desperately in need of renovation it is. However, the full scope of the project will be determined during the paint removal process which is currently underway. The paint removal process is not expected to be completed until next summer. Therefore, I think it prudent for us to delete the funds from this bill until we have the completion of that process and have the information available to us that will come as a result. That is why we do not recommend proceeding until the full scope of the project has been determined. That is where a large part of the savings that we referred to have come from. I see the Senator from California has arrived. I wish to make public acknowledgment of the great contribution she has made to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. This is her first assignment on the subcommittee as its ranking member, and I have found her not only delightful and cooperative to deal with but, perhaps even more appreciated, fully engaged. It is one thing to have a colleague who is nice to deal with but who never shows up and never pays any attention to any of the issues. The Senator from California not only shows up but comes with her homework having been done, a full agenda of her own, and complete understanding of the issues. I appreciate very much the opportunity I have had of working with her and welcome her to the subcommittee and to this particular bill.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and appreciate her comments.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, having agreed to the managers' amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read for the third time and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate, and that following passage the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask for their adoption.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now call up S. 1206.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and particularly thank her for remembering the staff. We stand here before the television cameras, but we take credit for the work they do. I appreciate her doing that. Amendments Nos. 683 and 684, En Bloc

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers S. 1206, the legislative branch appropriations bill, immediately following the reporting of the bill by the clerk, I be recognized to offer a managers' amendment, and the time on the amendment and the bill be limited to 20 minutes equally divided, with no amendments in order to the managers' amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the managers' amendment, the bill be immediately advanced to third reading, and the Senate proceed to the House companion bill. I further ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1905 be amended as follows: On page 2, after line 1, insert the text of S. 1206, as amended, beginning on page 2, line 2, over to and including line 7 on page 10; beginning on page 11, line 13, over to and including line 18 on page 18 be struck and the text of S. 1206, as amended, beginning on page 10, line 8, over to and including line 22 on page 16 be inserted in lieu thereof; and beginning on page 18, line 23, over to and including line 6 on page 40 be struck and the text of S. 1206, as amended, beginning on line 23, page 16 over to and including line 23 on page 38 be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask unanimous consent that upon passage of the House bill, S. 1206, be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, Utah has at least 30 dams that currently do not meet current safety standards. Most of these dams were built more than 30 years ago by either the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service or the state for a variety of purposes such as flood control, irrigation or municipal purposes or for wildlife enhancement. As these dams have aged, safety concerns have increased. We now find ourselves facing tremendous and expensive safety issues. Earlier this year, I requested additional funding for research related to monitoring and manipulating subsurface flows which affect Bureau dams. It is my hope that this research could be utilized to help address dam safety across the West. Unfortunately, given the committee allocation, it was not possible to provide increased funding this year. I know that the Bureau is seeking to conduct more extensive research to determine the possibility of manipulating subsurface flows and the effects on dam safety. Utah State University's Water Research Lab has been identified as a leader in this effort. I also requested funding to be directed toward the Dam Breach Modeling program which would research additional modeling of dam failure scenarios. This research would include water tracking technologies to monitor internal movement of water through dams, and allow the Bureau to explore applying this technology to specific Western dams. The technology would provide the Dam Safety program with additional tools to gather information on internal conditions and analyze dam integrity and make predictions on possible impacts from floods, earthquakes and similar events. It is anticipated that after a testing period, assistance could be made available to federal and state dam safety officials in assessment programs. Utah, New Mexico, Idaho and almost all western states have potentially serious dam safety problems. New technologies could provide information to identify high risk areas and define the critical flows and leaks that threaten a structure. As a member of the subcommittee, I certainly understand the pressures on the chairman because of the budget limitations and personally know that he has done everything he can to meet the enormous and competing demands. I hope that should additional funds become available down the road, the Committee would consider these requests at some funding level.