T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Walter Dunn, a fellow working in Senator Bingaman's office, be accorded privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 2237.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as and when these amendments are adopted, they be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, should a Senator desire to do so.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, these are primarily a set of rather small and technical amendments. The first one, for Senator Craig, strikes section 333 regarding recreation residence fees and modifies section 343 of last year's bill on that subject. It is more modest than the section 333 that it strikes. The second amendment by the distinguished occupant of the Chair subjects certain reserved mineral interests to the Mineral Leasing Act. The next set of amendments, all of which carry my name, are a technical fix to section 332 on prescribed burning operations; a technical amendment to section 328 on the authority given to the Forest Service to acquire independently a general ledger system; a technical change to section 339 on the prohibition of the use of timber purchaser road credits; a technical change to section 331 on Forest Service regulations on the use of fixed climbing anchors; a technical change on the financial statements from the Office of Special Trustee, this at the administration's request; a technical correction on reprogramming procedures; an amendment to the BIA language relating to other tribes taking land into trust from within the boundaries of the original Cherokee territory; a proposal by Senator Reid on the BLM modifying section 125 to correct and clarify the legal description of lands to be conveyed; and one of my own relating to the Forest Service, a technical correction regarding accounting for indirect expenses. As I said, Mr. President, these tend to perfect sections that are included in the bill and under my unanimous consent request will be subject to further amendment if any Member desires to do so just as if they were a part of the original bill.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope within a few minutes to have a few corrective amendments to offer to the bill, but seeing no one with an amendment on the floor at the present time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Kevin Johnson, Kurt Dodd, and Carole Geagley of the Appropriations Committee staff; Chuck Berwick and Kari Vander Stoep of my personal staff; and Hank Kashdan, Mary Ellen Mueller, and Craig Leff, detailees with the Appropriations Committee, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 2237.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to bring before the Senate the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. The bill provides $13.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for agencies and programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, an increase of $265 million above the FY 98 freeze level, but $660 million less than the President's budget request. As always, putting this bill together has been a great challenge. The subcommittee received more than 2,000 individual requests from Senators regarding particular projects or programs, the majority of which were requests for additions to the President's budget request, which I have already mentioned is well in excess of the amounts available to the Subcommittee. While Senator Stevens has been as generous with the Interior Subcommittee as I could reasonably expect him to be given the constraints of the discretionary spending caps, the subcommittee's allocation is such that the FY 1999 bill in large part continues programs at or near the current year level. There are significant, but modest, increases for a handful of high priority programs, but for the most part there are few surprises or dramatic new funding initiatives. As Members consider whether particular programs in this bill have been treated fairly within the constraints of the subcommittee's allocation, I hope they will consider two factors. First, for the first time since Fiscal Year 1995, this bill does not mandate a sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for the costs of operating the reserve. An oil sale at current price levels would be unwise to say the least. But the fact that this bill does not include an oil sale means that the Subcommittee had to find $155 million for operation of the Reserve that was not included in last year's base. As a consequence, the increase in the Subcommittee's allocation is effectively only $110 million above the freeze level. The second factor of which I want my colleagues to be aware when evaluating this bill is the impact of increases in Federal pay, benefits and other fixed costs. The Interior bill as a whole is one of the most personnel-intensive of the appropriations bills, supporting tens of thousands of park rangers, foresters, Indian health professionals and other Federal workers. Each year the agencies funded in this bill must accommodate increases in pay and benefits for these workers, and similar cost increases over which the Subcommittee has no direct control. In FY 1999, these ``uncontrollable costs'' will amount to more than $200 million. Lest any of my colleagues feel these costs are attributable to a bloated bureaucracy, I note that Department of the Interior staffing in Washington, D.C. is 17% below its 1993 base--despite a significant expansion since that time in the number of parks, refuges, and other Interior programs, most of which have been authorized by Congress. This 17% reduction is the second greatest among all civilian cabinet agencies. While the Subcommittee continues to seek efficiencies and to terminate wasteful programs, yearly increases in pay and related costs for core Federal employees continue to consume most or all of any increases that the Subcommittee may receive in its allocation. Having noted two of the major factors impacting funding levels in this year's bill, I want to highlight some priority programs where we were able to provide modest--but significant--increases. The bill includes a $55 million increase for operation of the national park system, including increases over the current year level of $18 million for park maintenance, $15 million for special need parks, and $10 million for an across-the-board increase in park operations. These increases will benefit all parks, but particularly those units with severe operational shortfalls and critical deficiencies in maintenance funding. The bill also provides a $10.6 million increase in refuge operations and maintenance, which follows a $41 million increase provided in last year's bill. For the Forest Service, this bill places a heavy emphasis on improving accountability within the agency. A number of General Accounting Office reports and various Congressional hearings have clearly demonstrated that the Forest Service lacks the fundamental ability to account for its expenditures, and has shown a growing level of overhead and indirect expenses that corresponds with a decline in on-the-ground accomplishment. I am disturbed by these problems, but at the same time am wary of overreacting by mandating controls that may be counterproductive. I do see indications that the agency is determined to address its accountability problem. With these considerations in mind, I have included language in the bill to require increased accountability by eliminating the general administration line item, and requiring the Forest Service to display clearly the source of funds that go to overhead and other indirect expenses. We have also consolidated three budget line items, where maintenance functions are performed along with other work, into two distinct line items where only maintenance, reconstruction and construction activities occur. I hope that actions such as this, along with commitment from top Forest Service officials, will help the agency to institute proper management controls and clean up its accountability mess. The other major Forest Service initiative in this bill deals with the amount of timber the Forest Service will be expected to offer for sale. In 1990, the Forest Service offered for sale approximately 11 billion board feet of timber. In fiscal year 1999, the Administration proposes to offer only 3.4 billion board feet. That's a 69% reduction. Many of my colleagues know first hand the devastating effect that this reduced timber program has had on timber dependent communities. With timber growth rates far in excess of 10 billion board feet per year, it is unconscionable that the administration proposes a timber offer level of less than one-third of that amount. Accordingly, the Committee has provided additional funding, and expects the Forest Service to sell approximately 3.6 billion board feet of timber in fiscal year 1999. This amount is 200 million board feet more than proposed by the administration, but about 200 million board feet less than the fiscal year 1998 level. I also want to note that this 3.6 billion board feet figure is a correction of the 3.784 billion board feet figure incorrectly included in the Committee report. The bill also includes $10 million for the administration's Millennium initiative for historic preservation projects of national importance. Due to the constraints of the Subcommittee's allocation and a general aversion to beginning new programs, I had not intended to provide funds for the Millennium program. But I found the Millennium program's primary advocate --the First Lady--to be very persuasive when she called me at the urging of Senator Bumpers. I look forward to working with her to define better how these funds might be used. To balance the increase provided for historic preservation projects on a national level, the bill also includes a 20 percent $6 million increase for the existing grants-to-States program in the Historic Preservation Fund account. The bill also includes funds for a number of specific historic preservation projects, including $3 million for the Smithsonian Institution for rehabilitation of the Star Spangled Banner. This appropriation will complement non-federal funds that have been pledged for this project by the Pew Charitable Trusts, and most recently by Ralph Lauren. The bill also provides funds to continue construction of the National Museum of the American Indian on the Mall, and to continue renovation of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. For the agency that receives perhaps more attention than any other in this bill--the National Endowment for the Arts--the bill provides just over $100 million. This is precisely the same funding level as was approved by the Senate last year, but a slight increase over the final appropriation. I also note that the bill continues the several reforms that were agreed to during deliberations on the fiscal year 1998 bill, including restrictions on individual grants, subgrants, and seasonal support; limitations on total grants to any one State, and increased emphasis on arts education and programs for under served populations. With the House having voted by a substantial margin to provide level funding for the NEA, the gap to be bridged in conference will be far narrower than it was last year. The National Endowment for the Humanities is funded at $110.7 million in the Senate bill, the same as the fiscal year 1998 level. For the Indian Programs that comprise approximately 30 percent of the Interior bill, the biggest challenge for the Committee was to attempt to fill the gaping hole left by the administration's budget request for the Indian Health Service. Facing the challenges of a deteriorating infrastructure, increasing service population growth, and a relatively high rate of inflation in the medical services sector, the Indian Health Service was nevertheless the only major Interior bill agency that did not share in the bounty of the administration's inflated budget request. The Committee has provided a $53 million increase for the Indian Health Service, $34 million more than the budget request. This includes more than $16 million to staff newly completed health facilities--an item for which the administration inexplicably did not request funding. The amount provided also includes funds to cover a modest portion of IHS's fixed cost increases, which the administration also did not include in its budget. To some extent the increase provided for the Indian Health Service comes at the expense of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although the bill does provide a $15 million increase for the Operation of Indian Programs account, the overall BIA budget is essentially flat. But even if the resources available to the Subcommittee were less constrained, I think it would be imprudent to provide a significant increase for the largest of BIA programs--Tribal Priority Allocations--until we develop a more rational means of allocating TPA funds. As it stands, some $757 million in TPA funds are distributed in a manner that ignores the relative financial health and needs of the recipient Tribes. Though its history is difficult to trace, the current allocation system seems to have been developed piecemeal over a period of decades through a combination of departmental, tribal and congressional actions. Each of these individual actions may have made perfect sense at the time at which it was taken. But their cumulative effect has been to create a system in which a number of quite wealthy tribes receive far greater per capita TPA allocations than some of the most destitute tribes. While I cannot imagine that such a system would ever be seen as appropriate, it is almost offensive in a time when Federal appropriations are severely constrained by balanced budget requirements, and when a number of tribes are profiting quite handsomely from business ventures such as gaming. The bill before the Senate attempts to address this inequity by mandating that the BIA identify the top 10 percent of tribes in terms of per capita tribal revenue, and directing the BIA to distribute half of the TPA payments that would have gone to those tribes to the 20 percent of tribes with the lowest per capita tribal revenue. The bill also directs BIA to develop possible formulas for the future distribution of TPA funds, and gives the Bureau authority to collect the information required to develop such formulas. I recognize, that this is not a perfect solution. Many have expressed concerns about the manner in which funds are proposed for distribution in FY 1999, the extent to which BIA should be authorized to collect financial information from the tribes, and the degree to which tribes themselves should be involved in the reallocation process. But few, if any, have argued that the current distribution system is either just or a wise use of taxpayer dollars. I have had extensive discussions about this issue with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. Kevin Gover, as well as with Senator Campbell, Senator Inouye and other interested colleagues. I am pleased that these discussions have resulted in alternative language that I believe will have widespread support and can be adopted as an amendment to this bill. The new language permits the wealthiest tribes to return voluntarily Tribal Priority Allocations to the BIA for redistribution to the neediest. However, the substitute language does not diminish the Federal Government's trust responsibilities or that tribe's ability to access future appropriations. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is directed to develop, within Congressionally mandated obligations, a new method for distributing TPA funds by April 1, 1999. Finally, the substitute language excludes from the redistribution plan payments made by the Federal Government in settlement of claims and judgments and income derived from lands, natural resources, or funds held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. President, in this bill there are a number of other legislative provisions and limitations on the use of funds about which my colleagues may have heard. The administration and its advisors in the environmental community have evidently decided to attack these provisions en masse, arguing that they represent ``stealth'' or ``dark of night'' attacks on the environment by Republicans. This tells me three things. First, the administration is reluctant to argue any one of these issues on its merits. Second, the administration has not been paying attention in any of the dozens of Congressional hearings that have been held on these issues, the vast majority of which included administration witnesses. And third, the administration is either unaware of, or is choosing to ignore, the historic oversight role of the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans. There are indeed several legislative provisions and limitations on the use of funds in this year's Interior bill. There are a few more such provisions than were in the Senate version of the bill last year, but fewer than in the final FY 1997 Act. Some of the provisions have been inserted at the request of fellow Republicans. Some, such as the mining patent moratorium and the moratoria on offshore oil and gas development, are included at the request of the administration or my Democratic colleagues. These provisions are inserted in appropriations bills for one of several reasons, Mr. President. Some are included to address critical health and safety issues that require immediate attention. The King Cove road provision falls into this category. Other provisions are included because they are an integral part of the Committee's fiscal oversight role. The provision regarding distribution of TPA funds falls into this category, as does a provision in the bill that provides for the orderly termination of the overpriced and out of control Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. But perhaps the single most common reason that legislative provisions and limitations on the use of funds are included in this bill is the overzealous use of regulatory powers by the executive branch without the adequate involvement of Congress or the public. This is the dynamic that has prompted any number of such provisions, from the moratoria on offshore oil and gas development that are included in this bill year after year, to the provision in this year's bill that requires a comprehensive study of regulations governing mining on public lands. If it seems that there are more limitations on the use of funds in this bill than there have been in the past, it is very likely because this administration has made a conscious decision not to engage Congress in a constructive dialogue on a whole array of critically needed reforms to insensitive land management decisions, and has instead decided to press the top-down, Washington, D.C.-knows-best agenda of its extremist environmental allies through the use of Executive orders and over broad regulatory actions that in some cases are downright insulting to me as a member of the legislative branch. In about every case, these riders have the support of all--or a vast majority of--the members of the House and Senate in the districts and States to which they apply. Generally speaking, Members of both bodies defer to judgment of the Members affected by regional policies and issues. This administration, however, constantly demands the right to override the views of Members immediately affected, and their constituents, with a constant and pervasive ``DC knows best'' attitude. In any debate over these issues, I ask my colleagues to listen with care and sympathy to the Members whose constituents lives are so often arrogantly ignored by unelected bureaucrats. If the administration or any Member of the Senate wishes to discuss or debate the merits of any individual provision in this bill, I am willing to do so. But I find it ludicrous--if not offensive--for the Administration simply to lump every provision it finds the least bit inconvenient onto one list of so-called ``objectionable riders,'' condemn the use of such provisions as some new and nefarious practice, and to demand that all such provisions be removed under threat of a veto. I fully anticipate some give and take with the administration as this bill moves through conference, but it is not the job of the Senate simply to approve administration requests for funding and trust that it will be spent wisely and in accordance with the intent of Congress. We have plenty of experience to the contrary, both with the current and previous administrations. Finally, I want to address an issue about which I am asked persistently, and that is the disposition of the $699 million `special' appropriation for land acquisition included in the FY 1998 bill. My colleagues may recall that $362 million of those funds remain to be allocated to specific projects. That allocation will be made by agreement of the House and Senate committees, and will be transmitted to the administration by letter. I have had several discussions with Chairman Regula about this issue, and hope that we--together with Senator Byrd and Congressman Yates--can agree on an allocation of at least half of these funds in the very near future. I unfortunately cannot now say exactly when this allocation will be finalized, but I am confident that it will be soon, and that we will do our best to balance the priorities of the Senate, the House and the administration. On a personal level, I want to say one final thank you--for the record--to Sue Masica, who has for years been Senator Byrd's clerk for the Interior Subcommittee. Sue has been a tremendous resource for me and my staff, and I can say with great confidence has also been of assistance at one time or another to just about every Member in this Chamber, whether that Member knew it or not. Sue is now the Associate Director of Administration for the National Park Service, a position in which I know she will excel. I wish her the very best. I also want to recognize Sue's replacement--Kurt Dodd--and welcome him to the Committee staff. On my personal staff, I thank Chuck Berwick, Kari Vander Stoep, and Todd Young for their many contributions to this bill. I also thank Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Hank Kashdan, Leif Fonnesbeck, Kevin Johnson, and our detailee Mary Ellen Mueller for their hard work and long hours spent on this bill. I also thank Carole Geagley and Craig Leff of Senator Byrd's staff, and Steve Cortese, Jim English and Jay Kimmitt of the full committee staff for their many courtesies and willing assistance given to me and my staff. With that, I look forward to hearing from my friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as I said, this was in the nature of a vote that was appropriate for a Tuesday afternoon. I am very much in favor of this amendment. I do not believe there is any further debate on the amendment. I trust the President will put the question.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that we may be able to deal with soon, none of which will be particularly controversial. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, does have a different subject to which he would like to speak shortly. I intend to defer to him on that. But the important message to all of our colleagues, the message in effect given by this last vote, is this is an important appropriations bill. It is, in fact, controversial. We have a list of perhaps 60 amendments that are likely to come up on it at one point or another. Members should, I hope, be prepared to come to the floor of the Senate with those amendments and have them considered in an orderly fashion under which there is a reasonable amount of time for debate rather than to crowd them up against the end of the debate on this bill. It may very well be that later on in the afternoon we will have an amendment on this bill on an entirely different and very controversial subject, which will then essentially take us off of the Interior bill. Before that takes place, however, the managers of the bill would be very pleased to deal with amendments that relate to the bill itself. I ask Members to come to the floor with those amendments. With that, I yield the floor.

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, as the Senate considers appropriations for foreign operations, I would like to recognize the efforts of two organizations headquartered in my home state of Washington. World Vision Relief and Development (WVRD) and World Concern Development Organization (WCDO) have made great strides in bringing hope to a troubled world. On countless occasions, World Vision has achieved its objective of long-term transformation of human lives through effective implementation of emergency relief, rehabilitation and sustainable development programs throughout the world. World Vision, which is largely funded through the generosity of Americans, has operations in approximately 94 different countries. Of particular note is World Vision's efforts on behalf of the world's children. Through tireless efforts in public health and nutrition, the organization has allowed children to survive. In Sudan, World Vision has shown courageous long-term interest in the tragedy that continues to unfold there. Since operating in Sudan since the early 1980s, World Vision has provided 4 therapeutic feeding centers, brought medical supplies and services to the needy, and been committed to long-term agricultural development. WCDO based in Seattle works in the areas of relief, rehabilitation and development to help the recipients in developing countries achieve self-sufficiency, economic independence, physical health and spiritual peace through integrated community development. WCDO fosters crop improvement through new crops, cash crops and improved seed demonstration projects. It has also raised world literacy rates, developed communities, provided shelter for refugees, and given thousands the skills necessary to survive and grow. The world is a better place with WCDO in it. I know the Senate will join me in saluting the care World Vision and World Concern have shown for those in desperate need of compassion and a helping hand. (At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have sent an amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at an earlier date, on the bill similar to this relating to foreign policy, I discussed some of the policies of the International Monetary Fund in that connection with respect to Indonesia while Indonesia was still ruled by the Suhartos. That amendment, or a modification of that amendment, was included in the original passage of the International Monetary Fund refurbishment and, in fact, is included in this bill, although it is close to irrelevant now that the Government of Indonesia is in different hands and in considerable need of aid, as was indicated by some of the debate on the previous amendment. This amendment deals with my deep concern, a concern I believe widely shared, with respect to the way in which the International Monetary Fund is handling the problems in Russia. The amendment--a sense of the Senate directed at the International Monetary Fund--makes two points in that connection. The first cautions the International Monetary Fund against funding any Russian Government in which the Communist Party of Russia plays a significant role with respect to economic policy. We know that the Russian Government is in chaos at the present time after the firing of one Prime Minister by President Yeltsin and the substitution for him, at least at the behest of the President, of Mr. Chernomyrdin, a previous Prime Minister of Russia. His nomination was just rejected yesterday by the Russian Duma. We don't know where it will go. What we do know is that the Government of Russia was very close to an agreement with the Russian Communist Party, under which the Communist Party would play a major role in the Government and a major role in its economic policies, that major role being to reverse free market reforms and return to state control of the economy. It would be foolishness exemplified, were we to fund such a change in the Russian Government through the International Monetary Fund, and this amendment cautions against it. It also deals with another subject, the subject of all of the billions of dollars that the International Monetary Fund has granted to Russia already on condition that it move more decisively toward a free market economy. While the International Monetary Fund has dealt very firmly with respect to free market conditions in dealing with the crisis in Southeast Asia--with the Republic of Korea, with Thailand, with Malaysia, with Indonesia and the like--it has consistently operated with a double standard with respect to Russia. The double standard has not only wasted money, the double standard has created justified unhappiness, justified bitterness in the Southeast Asian countries that see the International Monetary Fund imposing a double standard: One very tough standard on them and far more lax standards or, rather, standards that are consistently ignored with respect to Russia. So this amendment, the sense-of-the-Senate amendment, also calls for a single standard with respect to International Monetary Fund funding of Russia, even in a noncommunist government, and the similarly situated countries in Southeast Asia. As the chairman of the subcommittee said, I think this represents a broadly held point of view. I am not sure that it should not be a part of the bill as a mandate on the way in which we deal with the International Monetary Fund, but because I cannot see the future, it is merely a sense of the Senate at this point. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article about this double standard called ``The IMF's $22.6 billion failure in Russia,'' from the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. GORTON. With that, Mr. President, and with a view that I believe this amendment is agreed to, I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 510, S. 2375.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4237 which was received from the House.