T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to say to my good friend from Utah that I agree that draining Lake Powell is not a reasonable proposal, and I support his effort to put the issue to rest with this amendment. However, I would like to ask my colleague from Utah if he believes that his amendment in any way opens the door to the administration to pursue the decommissioning of other Bureau of Reclamation projects without Congressional approval?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Virginia and I will be pleased to recommend that the conferees consider your thoughtful request to recede to the House proposal, which increases funding for the IMLS by an amount of $500,000 above the Senate level. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia's support for the work of the IMLS and hope that our final allocation is such that we are able to provide additional funding for museum programs of the IMLS.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee would be concerned should the language of the final management plan diminish the ability of the State of Utah to manage wildlife damage prevention within the Monument. If this is the case, I would hope BLM would consult with the State of Utah during the Governor's Consistency Review to amend that language to prevent any potential conflict that might occur.

Mr. GORTON. This sounds like a very thorough effort. I would like to join Senator Domenici in commending the Nambe Pueblo for their hard work in developing a needs data base system that will enable them to track the use of TPA funds.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Virginia and will be happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. GORTON. In Committee on the Senate side, we were able to boost funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services by $500,000, from its fiscal year 1999 level of $23.405 million, to $23.905 million for fiscal year 2000. And now we have adopted the Cochran and Bennett amendments as part of the managers' amendment to boost funding for the NEH and NEA by $4.000 million each.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the pending technical amendment No. 1359 be adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that it is important that the Secretary complete this study expeditiously and explore ways to use information technology to maximize the ability of paleontologists to study scientifically significant fossils.

Mr. GORTON. I was glad to see this pilot program recommended in the TPA report I have recently received from the BIA. We required this report in last year's appropriations bill. I have also noted that Nambe Pueblo has gone through a long process of local meetings to catalog their needs and organize their plans for using TPA funds. They have persevered in developing a model needs based budget process.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I concur with this observation about the poor BIA oversight and management of locally operated TPA programs. The BIA has not been able to tell the Senate just how these funds are spend by tribal governments. Other than broad categories, the tribes themselves do not have to report how these funds are meeting trial needs and goals. There are so many eligible uses for these funds that tribes do not report TPA spending to the BIA with any specificity. In public safety, for example, TPA funds can be spend for police cars. Natural resource funds can be spent on growing blue corn or improving a fish hatchery. The BIA has little information about how tribal goals are being met with TPA funds, and TPA funds make up almost half of the entire BIA operations budget for Indian programs. Any effort to help us clarify the precise use of TPA funds will be a major step forward in accountability for both tribes and the BIA. I welcome a pilot effort to move toward that goal.

Mr. GORTON. Initially--that amount was subject to a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction; consequently, the House-passed funding level is $24.282 million, or $377,000 more than what the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator raises a good point. I am aware of the progress which has been made to date and I congratulate the Advisory Board on their efforts. I share the Senator's concerns about the creation of such a position. It is unclear to me how a single coordinator position from outside the Region would specifically help Washington County and BLM administer the HCP and improve things on the ground.

Mr. GORTON. This last large package includes a Gorton-Levin-DeWine amendment with respect to Great Lakes fish and wildlife restoration and spartina grass research; one by Senator Cochran and others with respect to the National Endowment for the Humanities; one by Senator Bennett and others with respect to the National Endowment for the Arts; one from Senator Lieberman with respect to the Weir Farm National Historic Site; one by Senator Abraham with respect to Isle Royale National Park; one from Senator Jeffords with respect to weatherization assistance grants and State energy conservation grants; one by Senators Crapo and Burns with respect to cold water fish habitat conservation plans in Idaho and Montana; one from Senator Torricelli with respect to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park; one from Senator Johnson, Senator Burns, and others with respect to tribally controlled community colleges; one from Senator Shelby with respect to a wildlife data system in Alabama; one from Senator Inouye and others with respect to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial; one from Senator Bingaman with respect to the Youth Conservation Corps; another from Senator Bingaman with respect to Indian post-secondary schools and changes to the Federal funding formula; one from Senator Kohl with respect to UK development LLC; one from Senator Edwards with respect to Lake Logan, NC; one from Senator Abraham and others with respect to payments in lieu of taxes; one from Senator Murkowski and others with respect to the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside program; one from Senator Stevens with respect to the Smithsonian Institution and Indian Health Service; one from Senator Levin with respect to the Keweenaw National Historic Park in Michigan; one from Senator Collins with respect to the St. Croix Island International Historic Site; one from Senator Feinstein with respect to Forest Service reimbursement; one from Senator Bingaman with respect to municipal energy management; one from Senator Byrd with respect o the Wheeling National Heritage Area; one from myself with respect to the Forest Service/Weyerhaeuser Huckleberry land exchange; one from Senator Reid of Nevada with respect to the Weber Dam in Nevada and feasibility study for a tribally operated trout fish hatchery on the Walker River; one from Senator Stevens with respect to timber pipeline supply on the Tongass National Forest; one from Senator Lott with respect to Civil War battlefields; one from the two Senators from Minnesota respecting a Minnesota science center; one from Senator Kerrey of Nebraska with respect to the Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge land acquisition; one from Senator Bond with respect to Wilson's Creek National Battlefield; one from Senator Hollings with respect to Fort Sumter National Monument land acquisition; one from Senator Abraham with respect to a Michigan community development database; one from Senator Warner with respect to sand and gravel; one from Senator Torricelli with respect to UPARR; and a final amendment of my own, a manager's amendment with respect to the setoffs necessary to pay for the other amendments we have adopted or are about to adopt.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will gladly yield to a question from my good friend from Louisiana.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. However, the rural counties should also seek the expertise of Utah State University and the State of Utah and rely on their personnel to complete this mapping project.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senators' comments. The Committee shares your view that the protection of the loggerhead sea turtle is critical, and we will consider the needs of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge during our conference with the House. sea turtle conservation

Mr. GORTON. I say to my friend from New York that I am aware of the strong support for the IMLS here in the Senate. Rest assured that I will give every consideration to providing additional support for the IMLS when we go to conference on the bill.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the last set of collective amendments, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. preservation of fossils collected from public lands

Mr. GORTON. For anyone who is listening, these amendments include one by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, on National Forest- dependent rural communities; two by myself, one technical and one with respect to a Plum Creek land exchange; one by Senator Kyl of Arizona with respect to funding for tribal school operations; two by Senator Reid of Nevada on conveyances in that State; one by Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, and Cochran with respect to Federal energy use, to which is appended a statement by Senator Cochran; and one by Senators Breaux and Landrieu with respect to Fish and Wildlife Service authority to retain and use certain fees.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will comment further on that amendment. A number of objections from people in the vicinity of a portion of that land exchange were made both to me and to my colleague, Senator Murray. The letter responds to many of those concerns, and others will be responded to by the Plum Creek Company itself. I would like to say a number of those objections were valid objections and deeply concerned this Senator, and we hope they will largely be alleviated by the prompt response of Plum Creek. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter addressed to me from Plum Creek be printed in connection with the Plum Creek land exchange amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a package of numbered amendments to the desk with modifications and ask unanimous consent that these amendments be adopted en bloc. They have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, again, the same explanation. These amendments include one from the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, with respect to St. Croix Island International Historic Site; one by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, with respect to Lake Powell; one from Senator Murkowski with respect to inspection fees for imported skins and furs; one from Senators Murkowski, Campbell, Inouye, and Johnson with respect to the Indian Trust Asset and Accounting Management System; one from Senator Campbell with respect to pine beetle eradication; one from Senator Bryan and Senator Reid of Nevada with respect to Grand Canyon overflights; one from Senator Burns with respect to grizzly bear reintroduction--Senator Craig is a cosponsor of Senator Burns' amendment--one from Senator Stevens with respect to Haines Borough in Alaska; and one from Senator Durbin with respect to Shawnee National Forest.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 15. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume debate on H.R. 2084, the transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in fiscal year 1990, the Forest Service sold 11 billion board feet of timber for harvest and for productive use. For the last 2 years, we have authorized through our appropriations 3.6 billion board feet of harvest. The administration proposed in its budget for this year 3.2 billion, a further reduction, and a reduction from 1990 of 71 percent, as my colleague from Idaho pointed out. Peculiarly, or interestingly enough, the Forest Service in its actual National Forest Land Management Plan allows for a harvest of about twice this amount. It is only the appropriations level recommended by the administration, and for that matter by this Congress, that has the level almost 50 percent below what the Forest Service plans say is both economically and environmentally sustainable. That is the first peculiar argument. Second, the committee bill does not increase the allowable harvest. It simply allows the same harvest for next year that appropriations bills passed overwhelmingly by this body and signed by the President have permitted for the course of the last 2 years. The question is whether or not we should continue to move toward no harvest at all, as many of the national environmental organizations recommend, or whether we should consider continuing the relatively modest harvests that were promised by this President and this administration at the beginning of his Presidency, most particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The Senator from Idaho pointed out that this is not exclusively a Northwest issue; that it applies to forests in other parts of the country, including the hardwood forests in the Northeast. The original Bryan amendment distributes this money relatively widely--a fairly small percentage of the overall Interior appropriations bill--including a modest amount which simply is not to be spent at all and will go to the national debt. Most of that modest amount, however, is taken up and spent by the Wyden second-degree amendment that is to be directed at surveys of various species in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. About those surveys, the Oregonian wrote an editorial 3 days ago. Three paragraphs of that editorial read as follows: Maybe now it is finally clear to the Clinton administration that it is fiscally and practically impossible to count every slug, every lichen, every salamander that lives on every timber sale on public forest land in the Northwest. The surveys of rare species of animals and plants required in the Northwest Forest Plan are ``technically impossible'' and ``preposterous,'' in the words of the Society of American Foresters, a professional group holding its national convention in Portland this week. . . Intentional or not, the survey requirement inserted into the Northwest Forest Plan has proven to be a poison pill--a way to block all logging and prevent the plan from working as it was designed. That is the end of my quote from that editorial. The Wyden second-degree amendment wastes $10 million. It literally wastes $10 million on surveys that are ``impossible'' according to the newspaper, ``preposterous'' according to the Society of American Farmers, and ``a poison pill'' for any timber sales whatever. Estimates made during the course of a debate last week on carrying out all of these surveys were somewhere between $5 billion and $9 billion--not the $10 million that is included in this amendment. In other words, we are being asked by this amendment simply to throw away $10 million on useless surveys and at the same time to reduce further a timber sale program, a harvest, that is approximately half of what the Clinton Forest Service and its forest plans has said is environmentally and economically appropriate in the forests of the United States. There is no rational ground for either the first-degree amendment or the second-degree amendment, except for the proposition that we wish to drive as quickly as we possibly can to a situation in which there is no longer any harvest of timber products on the national forests or, for that matter, all of the public lands of the United States. That is a conclusion and a goal that is economically unsound, environmentally unsound in the United States, bad for our balanced payments, and bad for the management of forests and the rest of the world whose products would be substituted for our own if that goal were reached. I trust that sound judgment and wisdom will prevail and that both of these amendments will be rejected. I want to point out once again that the committee report, the Appropriations Committee bill that is before the Senate, does not increase timber harvests on public lands of the United States. It retains exactly the level they were authorized for in the current year by the current appropriations bill, a level that the Senator from Idaho, I, and the junior Senator from Oregon believe already to be unwisely low. We did not come here with a controversial point of view; we came here with essentially a freeze. We ask our colleagues to support the committee in that connection.