T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. My home state, too, has experienced the disruption that a federal endangered species listing can cause. I therefore appreciate the importance and urgency of the funds sought by the Senator from Maine.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Maine is correct. I expect that the $2.5 million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5 million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.

Mr. GORTON. As I have said before, I greatly admire the Senator from Maine's tenacity and her unfailing devotion to the best interests of her State. lake tahoe land acquisition colloquy

Mr. GORTON. That is my understanding.

Mr. GORTON. In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your interpretation of the language in question.

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. GORTON. The Senator is correct.

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

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. 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. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate that. As the Senator knows, this is a reciprocal relationship. The people of the State of Washington can thank the Senator from the State of New Mexico for many vitally important programs that are in the bill for energy and water that he manages.

Mr. GORTON. I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, my good friend, who also has a great deal of responsibility for this. I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report on the Interior and Related Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The conference report passed the House yesterday on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 348-69. The bill provides $18.94 billion in total budget authority, an amount significantly above both the FY 2000 level of $15 billion and the President's FY 2001 request of $16.5 billion. This increase is primarily attributable to two items that I know to be of great interest to my colleagues. The bulk of the increase over the budget request level is a direct result of the disastrous wildfires that plagued the West this summer. This bill includes the administration's $1.6 billion supplementary fire package, as well as $200 million in additional funds to address rehabilitation needs on the national forests, maintenance and upgrades to firefighting facilities, and for community and landowner assistance. The bill also includes the $240 million provided in the Domenici floor amendment for hazardous fuels reduction in the wildland/urban interface. Those areas which public lands abut upon communities, towns and cities, as well as language designed to expedite this work that so desperately needs to be done. This language does not, however, overturn or bypass the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, or any other environmental statute. In total, the bill provides $2.9 billion for fire management. The other element of this legislation that has garnered the most attention is title VIII, the land conservation, preservation, and infrastructure improvement title. This title does two things: First, it provides an additional $686 million in fiscal year 2001 for a wide variety of conservation programs, including Federal land acquisition, the stateside grant program, forest legacy, and urban park recreation and recovery. These amounts are in addition to the amounts agreed to in conference in the base portion of the bill. In total, funding for these Interior programs is about $1.2 billion for next year. Second, title VIII establishes a new conservation spending category in the Budget Act for an array of conservation programs, for the maintenance of Federal land management facilities, most particularly, national parks, and for payments in lieu of taxes. Using the $1.2 billion provided in the fiscal year 2001 Interior bill as a base amount, plus a notional $400 million for coastal programs that may or may not be provided in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, this new spending category is established using a base of $1.6 billion. For Interior and CJS programs combined, this new budgetary category will go by $160 billion per year through fiscal year 2006. This separate allocation may only be spent on qualifying programs, and any amounts not spent will roll over and be added to the following year's allocation. Title VIII also establishes several subcategories within the broader category conservation category. The allocation provided for each subcategory will only be available for programs within that subcategory and may not be used for other programs. And, like the structure of the broader category, any amounts not appropriated within a subcategory in a given year would be rolled over and added to the following year's suballocation. The suballocations and associated amounts are shown on the chart. The bottom line is ``payments in lieu of taxes'' for $50 million a year-- over and above the present payment in lieu of taxes. The next amount is ``Federal maintenance,'' an amount added specifically at my request. This was originally suggested by House conferees. It glaringly omitted the deferred maintenance in our national parks and our forests and our wildlife refuges, an amount that I think approaches $16 billion, and a modest start on that over and above the present bill is included in each one of these years. Next, the orange is ``urban and historic preservation programs,'' the purple is ``State and other conservation programs,'' wildlife grants, wetlands conservation, the Geological Survey, and the like. The red is ``Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund programs.'' The green is ``coastal programs,'' basically under the jurisdiction of NOAA, and the ``other'' beginning in fiscal year 2002 is the $160 million a year add-on which can be at the discretion of the Congress, devoted to any one of these other programs. That will be decided by future Congresses. As the allocation for the overall category grows in the outyears, that growth is not tied to any particular subcategory. The suballocations are not caps. There is nothing to prevent the Appropriations Committee from also using its regular allocation to fund any one of these programs that provide additional funding from the overall program growth, the blue part, lines I have just described on the graph. While this structure is somewhat confusing at first, its effect is to provide some certainty to several programs within the Interior subcommittee jurisdiction which will be likely to receive and maintain substantial increases over the current funding levels. At the same time, it preserves the availability of Congress to adjust specific amounts on a year-to-year basis in response to changing needs performance and other factors. Finally, of course, any money not spent, while it cannot be spent for any other spending category, obviously will go to pay down the national debt. The programs that comprise the new spending category are a mix of programs identified as priorities by the administration in its budget request, by supporters of CARA during their deliberations, and by Congress as a whole as represented in the thousands of individual requests that I receive each year as chairman of this subcommittee. I want to emphasize, once again, what I did several months ago when we debated this bill for the first time. I think this year we had 1,100 requests from 100 Senators for programs within Interior--the great majority of which would fall into one of these categories. Vitally important is the fact that the bill does not create any new entitlements. At the same time, it is not an empty promise. For the same reasons-- we rarely see an appropriations bill go to the floor without spending every penny of its allocation--I think it likely that allocations provided in title VIII will be fully subscribed in each year's appropriations bill. The exact mix of funding will be up to future Congresses, but title VIII does prevent these funds from being taken from the target programs and used for other programs, even other programs within the Interior bills, such as Indian education, health services, Forest Service, the cleanup of abandoned mine lands. To be perfectly clear, the construct of title VIII is not what I would have dealt had I complete discretion. Nor do I believe it is what the Appropriations Committee would have written with complete discretion. Congress has always had the ability to provide increases to the programs through the regular appropriations process, but it has not necessarily done so due to the resulting impact on other programs and, of course, on the deficit or the surplus. Nevertheless, title VIII represents a fair compromise that reflects the general views of this Congress with respect to these programs, and it has the support of the administration. Now, the focus in recent weeks has been on wildfires and the conservation funding issues I have just addressed. There are other features of the bill to which I want to draw my colleagues' attention. The conference report provides an increase of $104 million for the operation of the National Park Service and the U.S. Park Police, including $40 million to increase the base-operating budgets of nearly 100 parks and related sites. The bill also provides an increase of $66 million for the management of Bureau of Land Management land and resources, a badly needed boost for an agency that has sometimes received less attention than the other land management agencies, but which has a demanding mission in terms of multiple uses. The operating budgets of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service also receive healthy increases, which I hope will enable these agencies to improve performance in areas such as the Endangered Species Act consultation and recreation management. In terms of programs designed primarily to benefit American Indians, this bill has a great deal to offer. From the very beginning of this process, I have made Indian education in school construction one of my highest funding priorities. Many colleagues on the committee-- particularly my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who is here on the floor--have for years stressed the need for increased investment in Indian schools. This year's budget request provided an opportunity to provide this investment. I am pleased the conference report provides $142 million for school replacement. This is $75 million above this year's enacted level and will provide funds for the replacement of the next six schools on the Bureau of Indian Affairs priority list. It also provides funding for a cost-share program for eligible replacement schools, which is designed to provide funding so that construction of replacement schools can be fully completed in order to remove the school immediately from the BIA priority list. Indian school repairs also increases by $80.5 million above last year's level. The conference report also provides significant increases for health services for Indian people, including an increase of $167 million for health services and $47 million for construction and repair of health care facilities. The bill provides continued support for the Department of Interior's efforts to reform its trust management practices. This is a massive problem that has developed over decades, if not the entire 20th century, which will take time and resources to fix. This conference report provides the budget request for the Office of the Special Trustee, and also provides an emergency supplemental of $27.6 million for activities directly related to recent developments in the Cobell litigation. In addition, the bill provides an increase of $31.9 million above fiscal year 2000 for trust reform within the regular Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations. Of the many cultural programs within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the National Endowment for the Arts was again the focus of much discussion in the House-Senate conference. The conference agreement maintains the Senate funding level for the NEA--an increase of $7.4 million above the current year level. These additional funds will be targeted for arts education and outreach programs, and I think are a fitting response to the reforms that the NEA has instituted in recent years. This is the first increase of any significance for the NEA in more than a decade. I am also pleased that funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities is also increased by $5 million. For energy programs, this conference report includes funding for several programs that will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, as well as reduce harmful emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The energy conservation account is increased by $95 million, including full funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles--PNGV. This amount also includes increases of $18 million for the Weatherization program and $4 million for the State Energy Conservation Program. For fossil energy R&D, the bill provides $433 million, and establishes a new powerplant improvement program to support demonstration of advanced coal power technologies. This is an initiative that I am sure Senator Byrd will wish to discuss further, because it is one of his favorite items. There are many other elements of this conference report that recommend its passage by the Senate, but I will only mention one more. Funding for payments in lieu of taxes is increased by $65 million, including $50 million provided in title VIII, outlined on this chart. This brings appropriations for PILT to $200 million. This increase represents a significant step in raising appropriations for PILT toward the authorized funding level. I also wish to note two errors in the Statement of Managers. Page 177 of the Statement of Managers indicates that an increase of $4 million above the House level is provided for ``Heavy Vehicle Propulsion within the hybrid systems activity.'' This is incorrect, and is a result of an error in the conference notes. The $4 million increase over the House level is for ``Advanced Power Electronics,'' reflecting the amount provided in the Senate-passed bill. On page 194 of the Statement of Managers, the paragraph that begins ``Consistent with paragraph (3) and accompanying Senate instruction . . .'' should have been deleted. In closing, I want to again urge my colleagues to support this conference report. It does a tremendous amount of good for the management of our Federal lands, as well as for the conservation of lands and waters whether Federal, state, municipal or private. It is a good bill that has the unanimous support of the conferees of both Houses, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator will be happy to yield.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico not only states the case correctly but understates his own participation. I am rather certain that the President would not have made the request without the constant advocacy on behalf of this program from the Senator from New Mexico. I think he can take great credit for this success.

Mr. GORTON. Again, this was the program of the Senator from New Mexico. I do not think there was any item in the conference committee that was discussed at more length with the administration and in more detail. I am gratified the Senator was able to make a reasonable compromise and I was delighted to support him.

Mr. GORTON. That is correct. I want to thank the Senator for his compliments and to say what is obvious--that his dedication and commitment to his constituents in this connection is both praiseworthy and effective. Earlier in the course of this debate, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was here to speak to the same subject. He and the Senator from North Dakota made a very good team. Together they persuaded the President to include this very significant amount of money, both for the construction of new Indian schools and for the repair of those that can appropriately be repaired or remodeled. But as the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, this is the first major contribution to that. I can say that as long as I am in this position and as long as the Senator from North Dakota is in his, I know we will keep this in the forefront of our consideration. And I tell him that we are going to try to get to the bottom of that priority list as well as to the top of the priority list. The Senator from North Dakota has done a good job in a good cause, and this bill takes a major step forward in meeting those priorities.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.