T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are now back for the final 3 and one- quarter hours of debate on amendments to the Interior appropriations bill. Any Member who reserved an amendment to that bill may present it between now and 6:15 this evening, at which time, by unanimous consent, we go to the marriage penalty bill for what may be an extended series of votes. Any of the amendments reserved on the Interior bill will be voted on, if, in fact, the vote is necessary, tomorrow morning. I list 12 amendments that were reserved for debate during this period of time. I am informed by staff that we have settled 4 of them. That leaves eight amendments: two by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman; one by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer; one by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan; one by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; one by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles; one by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed; one by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas. Curiously enough, most of these Senators who have said they will be here from between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock p.m., which takes a considerable portion of the debate time, are away. I think some of those eight amendments I have listed will themselves be settled without debate or by agreement. If any of the seven Senators whose names I have just mentioned are within hearing and sight of this debate, I urge that Senator to reach the Senate floor promptly. At this point they have a real opportunity to present their amendments. Later on, they are likely to be very constricted as to time. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any other. I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of money to support the functions of the Government of the United States itself. I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters later. I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper and efficient use of energy. With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the United States. That is from where this match comes. A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is primarily their responsibility. As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is precisely what this does.

Mr. GORTON. Certainly.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. The appropriations bill for military construction included many other matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the first place. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we did. Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the rest of this bill.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for good, except for votes, at 6:15.

Mr. GORTON. Is the Senator withdrawing the amendment?

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for that gesture. I support the cause to which he has spoken. If there is a way to get at least part of that adopted, I will try to find it. I express my appreciation to my friend from Nevada to whom I made a promise about debating this amendment earlier that I could not keep. He has been most understanding.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his explanation and for the modifications which have at least brought this amendment within the parameters of the bill itself. I must say, without going into it, I think there are several serious policy questions about this amendment, but more than that I think it needs to be resolved in the context of a reauthorization of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. I understand the Senator from Connecticut is working with the chairman of the committee on that, and so we can defer our final decision until tomorrow.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have about 5 minutes remaining. The Senator from Nevada is going to introduce two additional amendments, quite appropriately, before that. In connection with this amendment, however, I need to say that this amendment causes a conflict on my part more than any other here. I agree with the amendment. I think the power has been misused. I am not sure it can be reversed by another President. The Senator from Idaho seems to feel that it can be. But I believe we have had a number of actions that have raised far more questions than they have actually settled. By the same token, I know perfectly well if this amendment is in the bill that goes to the President, the President will veto the bill. I simply say, since I know my friend from Nevada will be on the conference committee, I don't intend to send a bill to the President that we don't believe he ought to sign, at the very least. I just have to leave that notice at this point. We have 4 more minutes. I will say one other thing. At least in theory, amendments can be brought up and discussed to this bill--the amendments that are listed in the unanimous consent agreement--and they could be further discussed after the end of the many votes that we have tonight. I yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada so he can introduce the remaining amendments.

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

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Bond second-degree amendment prevents funds from being used for the application of any pesticide that is not approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency in any area managed by the Park Service that may be used by children, and directs the Secretary of Interior to coordinate with EPA to assure pest control methods do not lead to unacceptable exposure of children to pesticides.

Mr. GORTON. It is clear from my friend's statement that he knows much about the sea turtle conservation protect, and I share his enthusiasm for these important efforts to project the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. While I am keenly aware of the fiscal constraints on the Fish and Wildlife Service, I once again encourage the Service to consider providing whatever support it can within these existing budget constraints.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and recognize the potential severity of the situation at the Washakie Dam. I would like to assure my colleague that I will work with him to ensure that adequate funding is available to make any necessary repairs to the dam or to conduct other activities necessary to ensure the safety of people living in the vicinity of the dam. hazardous fuel removal

Mr. GORTON. That is what we have agreed to, with the concurrence of Senator Byrd.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and assure him that the Committee recognizes the importance of protecting threatened lands throughout the country. idaho programs

Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Idaho to discuss this important issue.

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Idaho's interest in these projects. I am familiar with them and recognize their value. I would be happy to work with the Senator to make sure appropriate consideration is given to these projects in the Conference Committee.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I recognize that the Clean Coal Technology program is an important priority for Senator Byrd and Senator Dorgan and I urge the Department of Energy to consider the viability of concepts not fully developed on low-rank coals and coals containing high sodium as it works on the study we have requested.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would be happy to answer the Senator's questions. I know he is a champion of coal and the Clean Coal Technology program, and I am also aware of his abiding interest in the environmentally sound use of coal as a source of power for this nation.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The Committee fully expects the USFWS to fulfill its commitments in the Recovery Plan to carry out the desert tortoise monitoring, population estimation, and Recovery Plan reassessment. Additionally, the Committee expected the plan called for in the report language will focus solely on those three tasks.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator makes an excellent point. The Committee agrees that the desert tortoise monitoring methodology should be designed as you suggest.