Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1791 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the decline in funding for aeronautics research and development should be reversed)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished senior Senator for remarks. He has important questions. I will pick up with my remarks as soon as he last concluded.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, thank you. I thank my distinguished senior colleague from Virginia. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute or two to discuss the item that my senior Senator has just alluded to, which, in my judgment, is critical. I begin by saying that it is an area of research and development that is of enormous importance to every American who lives by an airport, every American who is concerned with our Nation's defense, and every American who flies on a regular basis, as all of our colleagues do. That issue is aeronautics research and development. Since the time of the Wright Brothers, American's commitment to aeronautics research and development has brought extraordinary returns on our Nation's military superiority and the rise in affordable passenger air travel. Both can be attributed directly to our investments in aeronautical research. In addition, aerospace products are America's top manufactured export commodity and are the top contributors to the positive side of the U.S. balance of trade. Air traffic is predicted to triple over the next 20 years. As our skies become more crowded and our airports noisier, aeronautics research continues to grow in importance. If we are to improve the safety, efficiency, and performance of our air travel system, we are going to need to develop new aeronautics, new aeronautics concepts, and new aeronautics designs and technologies that can better respond to the growing demands of our aeronautics infrastructure. In addition, America's aerospace industry is facing a fierce challenge from the European consortium, Airbus which has now captured over 50 percent of the world market that American airplane products and producers once dominated. At a time when there is a clear need for new investments in this field and near unanimous support in our country for new investments in basic research, it is troubling that our commitment to aeronautics research has been waning. Funding for aeronautics research was cut by $151 million from 1998 to 1999, and this year the President proposed to cut it by an additional $150 million. That is a 30-percent reduction in just 2 years. Even more worrisome is the fact that the House cut an additional $1 billion out of NASA's budget, placing the future of NASA aeronautics research and critical facilities such as NASA's Langley Research Center in great danger. For more than 80 years, the Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA, has been at the forefront of aeronautics research and pioneered innovations that are present in every plane in the air today, innovations that have affected and are important to every plane that flies today. Its facilities are one of a kind. If this center were closed, the United States would lose its most valuable resource for improving aircraft safety and performance. Senator Warner and I have worked closely with Senators Bond and Mikulski over the past few months to strengthen our commitment to aeronautics research. I am grateful to both of them that they have restored many of the severe cuts that were proposed by the House. I am still disappointed, however, that more money has not been set aside for aeronautics research. We have reached an understanding with the chairman and ranking member that further increases will be considered in conference. With that, I am very pleased to join the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia in offering this amendment. It is my understanding it has been agreed to on both sides. I note that the distinguished chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, probably spends more time in the air than any other Senator in this body. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to take just a few moments to express my concern about the funding of the Round II Empowerment Zones. I recognize how difficult your job is to balance all the priorities within the VA-HUD appropriations bill, but I want to make the managers of this legislation aware of how important Empowerment Zones are to communities nationwide. While I will continue to seek a bill that will enact full funding of the Round II Empowerment Zones, we need to make sure there are adequate funds to continue the economic revitalization efforts this year. Quite simply, the Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities represent a commitment made by the Congress in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act which approved a second round of competition for 20 new empowerment zone designations. Congress did not follow through with the grant money that complement the tax incentives that have already been approved. Without this funding, they will fall short of their goals, particularly in their ability to leverage funds. The Empowerment Zone program is of special importance to me because of my support of the efforts of Virginia's Norfolk-Portsmouth Empowerment Zone. Norfolk-Portsmouth took the first step to reclaim their community when they won an Enterprise Community designation during Round I competition. When Congress approved the Round II competition two years ago, Norfolk-Portsmouth won an ``upgrade'' to full Empowerment Zone status. This means that Norfolk-Portsmouth has more resources to leverage millions in public and private sector investments. Continued funding means a more well-prepared workforce to complement the tax credits already approved to attract employers. And that's just scratching the surface of Norfolk-Portsmouth's potential. From May 1995 to June 1999, 60 percent of those completing training are employed, with another 16 percent involved in additional training. Other cities have shown results just as impressive within its first year: for example, in the Columbus Empowerment Zone in Ohio, they have so far created or retained 700 jobs in a zone that had a poverty rate of about 46 percent. Working with over 15 businesses in Columbus, they have already secured about $700 million in private sector commitments. This type of investment in Norfolk-Portsmouth and other cities is an example of public-private partnerships at their very finest. Empowerment Zones work because people in the community--local government, the private sector and civic organizations work together to create a vision for their community and a strategic plan to achieve it. This kind of collaboration, designed and created for the people of the community by the people of the community, use public, private and non- profit funds to create economic and community revitalization. Without question, our nation is experiencing good economic times. But if we are to include those who are striving mightily to also participate in our economic prosperity, the time to do so is now. One way we can do this is by supporting the work of the Round II designees. With some additional appropriation in the VA-HUD bill, the Round II designees will have just enough to continue the work they're doing. The Administration is fully behind this effort and I understand they will be working on this issue with the Chair and Ranking Member. I hope the money allotted to Round II Empowerment Zones in the Housing and Urban Development budget and approved by the President will be restored.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act before us today makes a healthy increase of over 8 billion dollars to the President's request. This reflects concerns by the Congress that readiness has eroded to a point where our military is having to take significant risks in its day-to-day operations. Many of our colleagues are aware that we have sized our armed forces to engage not only in two major theater wars that break out nearly simultaneously, but also to handle the Bosnias, Kosovos and other smaller-scale contingencies that challenge our interests overseas. For the first time since we adopted our 2-war strategy not long after the end of the Cold War, the commanders in charge of our warfighting forces are warning the Congress--again for the first time in the post Cold War era--that the risks in our ability to fight in that second theater have gone from moderate to high. This risk is not merely some esoteric metric that only some military strategist can comprehend. Rather, the dangers are that we will lose an unacceptable number of men and women in battle, that we will lose excessive territory in the initial phases of battle, and that battles will last much longer than they would with a more capable force. This is a serious warning--not one we should take lightly. The military challenges to the U.S. in the decades ahead are ill-defined and very difficult to predict. While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has signaled a significant drawdown in Bosnia in the near future, while our commitment of troops to Kosovo is relatively small compared to those of our European allies, and while signs of progress on the Korean peninsula are making news this week, we also see the tragedy in East Timor, renewed Chinese threats against Taiwan, and rebel action in Russia, all of which remind us of the extraordinary instabilities that we will face in the next century. Whether we will see more or less conflict is unclear, but the growing competition for fixed resources in impoverished regions where populations grow unabated suggests that civil and interstate strife will only worsen. These strains will also spawn terrorists--including those embittered by their harsh circumstances and in particular those who feel they have nothing to lose. Decisive action, as we saw by the U.S. and others in Bosnia and Kosovo, will, we hope, deter future conflicts and gross human rights violations. But the speed with which the tragedy in East Timor developed on the heels of NATO's victory in Kosovo tempers such optimism. Ultimately, a combination of resolute determination to defeat aggression, strong support for democracies, and effective means for improving the quality of life for all is the best path to ensure we don't have to send our young men and women into harm's way repeatedly in the twenty first century. This conference report goes a long way toward ensuring we will be ready in the years to come. It invests in new weapons to the tune of three billion dollars over the FY 2000 Administration's request, and looks to the distant future with an increase for research and development of almost two billion dollars over the request. Readiness is increased by about 1.5 billion dollars. More importantly, this bill focusses on our greatest asset--our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--that ultimately make the defining difference between victory and defeat. With a significant pay raise and retirement reforms, the bill meets head on a continuing crisis in recruiting and retention. I was particularly pleased that the Senate and conferees agreed to provisions I had included in an earlier bill, S. 4, to focus pay increases on specialties--such as aviators--where retention and recruiting problems are particularly severe. At a time when we are watching every defense dollar so closely, I am disappointed that we did not do much more in this bill to rid the Department of Defense of so many wasteful expenditures. Across the nation, we are now obligating in excess of 3 billion dollars a year to pay for utilities, to maintain buildings and roadways, and to operate equipment on bases that are unneeded by our military. We are likewise spending billions on weapons and research programs that the Department of Defense did not request but was forced to pursue by the Congress. We watch the Department waste hundreds of millions of dollars due to misguided acquisition policies, poor oversight of inventories, and service duplication of effort. These are difficult problems to fix--due either to political inertia or sheer organizational complexity, but nonetheless we should and can do much more. Finally, Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on this bill's attempt to reorganize the entire Department of Energy. While PRC espionage has severely damaging consequences for long-term U.S. security, rushing to restructure a department with such vital responsibilities is not, in my view, prudent oversight on our part. In short, had the changes included here been instituted two decades ago, it is unclear that these changes would have had any impact on the PRC's ability to garner intelligence on our nuclear weapons. Indeed, one might even make the case that the bill will worsen this situation. I intend to track this matter closely in the years ahead and to support necessary modications of this language as the reorganization proceeds. Mr. President, on balance, this is a very good bill that does much to fix military readiness and other problems. I support its passage and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor an outstanding public servant. Recently, Vola Lawson, the city manager of the City of Alexandria, announced her retirement. During her fourteen years as city manager, Ms. Lawson provided the City with solid leadership and opened the doors of City Hall to all Alexandrians. I'm proud to add my name to the long list of those who are praising Vola Lawson. Her distinguished career offers the ideal model for public officials, and inspires confidence in our public institutions. I ask that yesterday's article from The Washington Post on Vola Lawson's retirement be printed in the Congressional Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 1999] After 14 Years, 4 Mayors, Alexandria Leader To Retire--Fiery City Manager Lawson in Office Since 1985 [By Ann O'Hanlon] Vola Lawson, the tough veteran city manager of Alexandria, announced yesterday that she will retire in March, marking a major transition for the city she helped define during the 28 years she worked for it. ``I think this city is one of the greatest cities in America,'' said Lawson, standing in the City Hall lobby that was named for her this year. ``This is a very bittersweet day for me.'' Lawson, who turns 65 today, has been city manager since 1985, a tenure more than twice the national average. During that time, the city has lured or endured major new development, including the planned U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a planned 300-acre residential and commercial complex on an abandoned railroad yard. Under Lawson, Alexandria also turned away a bid from then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder and then-Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke to build a football stadium there. In her 14 years, Lawson served under four mayors, all of whom stood with her yesterday, singing her praises. ``Vola has never met a stranger,'' said state Sen. Patricia S. Ticer (D-Alexandria), one of the former mayors. ``She is a shining example of what a public servant should be.'' Although her retirement was expected, a murmur still ran through the city of 122,000 yesterday. ``Boy, that's going to change the city more than anything I can imagine,'' said Katherine Morrison, executive director of the Campagna Center, a prominent local charity. ``I don't know anyone who knows Alexandria better or has devoted more of their life to Alexandria.'' Lawson worked her way up in Alexandria, blazing a path for women and minorities that some say is her prime legacy. As city manager, she has transformed City Hall from a largely white bureaucracy to an institution that better reflects the city's 40 percent minority population. ``I think her legacy in the city and in the minority communities will be absolutely enduring,'' said J. Glenn Hopkins, executive director of Hopkins House, an agency for children and families. ``Her ability to be compassionate and to create a compassionate government, her ability to manage and her ability to be accessible to black people, to Hispanic people, to old people, to everybody, regardless of their background or their history or their race, is exceptional among people of her level.'' Among today's city and county administrators, Lawson's professional pedigree is unusual. She attended George Washington University part time but dropped out when she had her first child. She plunged into community activism, and as a campaign organizer helped elect the city's first black council member in 1970. Her entry to City Hall was with the anti-poverty program, and she later worked in the housing office. She quickly rose to assistant city manager and found time to initiate the Head Start program and after-school child care at every elementary school. Lawson said she became an Alexandrian by accident. She and her husband, David, a psychiatrist, had planned to move back to Chevy Chase, but she got hooked on the community. ``We'll live the rest of our lives here,'' she said. ``We never planned to live here. We fell in love with Alexandria.'' Praise gushed from all corners yesterday, but there were criticisms, too: of an overbearing management style and a temper. ``She's very controlling, and that probably is her downside,'' said Jack Sullivan, who heads the city's civic federation. Nonetheless, said Sullivan, she has ``a marvelous personality'' and is ``one of the ablest public administrators I have ever met.'' Lawson's wrath is ``legendary,'' said a close friend, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who as mayor hired Lawson. But the source of the anger, he said, is unselfish. ``If you have acted in a way that hurt the city and you should or did know better, then you're dead meat with Vola,'' he said. William H. Hansell Jr., who heads the International City/ County Management Association, said her 14-year tenure is ``remarkable,'' especially in a community as ``diverse and challenging as Alexandria.'' She accomplished it by reflecting the values of the city, he said, laughing that ``there are not too many city managers who tell a billionaire and a governor where to stick their stadium.'' Lawson put the city on firm financial footing, twice achieving the Aaa bond rating and significantly lowering real estate taxes. Her retirement will take effect March 1, after which she plans to see more of her two grandchildren, enhance her reputation as a movie buff and read the three stacks of books she bought at yard sales. When people walk into the lobby that bears her name and wonder who Vola Lawson was, Moran said, they should be told, ``She was a woman who chose to devote her mind and her heart to all the citizens of this community.''

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 329, the legislative rider which attempts to bypass the administrative and legislative process. Section 329 would overturn recent Federal court decisions which merely required the Forest Service to collect the data the law requires for making forest management decisions like cutting timber. It would apply to all activities that are affecting wildlife on all 450 million acres of public lands in the United States. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior said: It is unnecessary, confusing, difficult to interpret, and wasteful. If enacted, it will likely result in additional and costly delays, conflicts, and lawsuits, with no clear benefit to the public or the health of public lands. It is opposed by the Forest Service. It is opposed by BLM. The Forest Service can comply and is complying with the court rulings. They are gathering the information now. Last night, my colleagues complained that the New York Times and the Washington Post did not understand the Northwest. Here is what the Seattle Times has to say about the decisions, in an editorial opposing section 329 with the headline, ``No More Outlaw Logging.'' It falls to the Forest Service to balance scientific and commercial interests . . . keeping the Forest Service honest and forcing it to commit resources to make the plan work.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1583 (Purpose: To strike Section 329 from a bill making appropriations for the Department of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that has been filed at the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Cleland, Chafee, and Torricelli.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I did not ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with because it was so short and to the point. The amendment simply strikes section 329 from the Interior appropriations bill we are now considering. Section 329 is a rider that is intended to overturn recent decisions handed down by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court in Washington State dealing with national forests. These courts were asked to examine the activities of the Forest Service and BLM to determine whether, in allowing certain timber sales from public lands, they complied with their own regulations and resource management plans that were developed under the National Forest Management Act. The courts found that they did not comply and disallowed the sales until they did. The forest plans guide the Federal decision-making, so that one activity in the national forests such as logging does not occur in detriment to other uses. These plans apply only to national forest land--Federal land--not private land. This is land held in trust for all people and all uses, and the Forest Service and BLM are charged with ensuring that decisions involving these public treasures are made wisely. We in Congress continually insist that Federal regulators operate using good science. But there is no good science without good data. Section 329, which my amendment would strike, would relieve the Forest Service from the obligation to develop any new data. And we cannot have good decisions without good science and good data. After decades of managing our forests primarily for the production of logs, we are now managing forests for a variety of uses. But we cannot do that without baseline data on threatened and endangered species. We are changing the way we manage forests and the way we look at forest uses. Preserving habitat and providing recreation also have become increasingly important. These changes are not easy. Proponents of this section, that my amendment would strike, fear that the requirements that we make sound decisions based on sound science and good data will lead to less logging. This is simply not true. Managing forests for their various uses, which include harvesting timber, requires an understanding of the entire system, including the plants, animals, even the pests that sometimes inhibit or damage growth. To improve forest management, in December of 1997 the Chief of the Forest Service appointed an independent committee of scientists to advise him on ways to bring better science into forest planning. The panel's findings strongly recommended the use of scientific evidence in managing forests. The panel repeatedly advised that monitoring is critical to sustaining forest health. In the cases that section 329 seeks to overturn, the courts simply require the Federal Government to undertake the monitoring that their own forest plans and rules require. Supporters of section 329 argue that the courts in these two cases have deviated from rulings by other courts where challenged timber sales were allowed to proceed. In other cases--and here is the important difference--the courts had enough data to rule in favor of the Forest Service. There was evidence to show that while the data gathered may not have been exhaustive, at least it was adequate. In the most recent cases that section 329 seeks to overturn, the courts, after noting deference to the Forest Service, recognized the job simply had not been done adequately or at all. The courts didn't rule that each and every species had to be monitored. They simply said to the Federal Government: You have to follow your own rules. You have to gather the data in which a sound decision can be based. For example, the Eleventh Circuit decision delayed seven timber sales in the southern Appalachian forest in Georgia until the Forest Service completed an evaluation of the impact the sales would have on the forest environment. The purpose of the information gathering is to ensure that the Forest Service makes an informed decision before it allows the removal of expanses of timber that could be crucial to survival of endangered or threatened species or that could affect overall forest health. In a similar action, a Federal judge in Washington State has delayed over 25 timber sales until the Forest Service completes the survey work required by the Northwest Forest Plan. In the case involving the southern Appalachian forest, the Forest Service failed to develop the required baseline data on a number of species in both the endangered and the threatened category and in a category known as ``indicator'' species. For example, the Forest Service had no population inventory information at all for 32 of 37 species in one category. The court of appeals ruled that in proffering the tracts of timber for sale, the Forest Service failed to comply with its own regulations. The court didn't just determine that the data was inadequate; the court determined that the data was nonexistent. Under most forest plans, the Forest Service develops lists of indicator species to provide a basis for monitoring. These lists have species such as deer, bear, bass, and trout. These species are representative of all the other species in the forest. The list is short and it is designed to be easy to monitor. In the Eleventh Circuit case, the Forest Service developed such a list but then failed to gather any information on most of the species on the list. In the Northwest, the court found that the Forest Service sidestepped similar requirements of the forest plan. The Northwest Forest Plan is the legal and scientific framework that allows timber sales to go forward in the old growth forests of the Northwest. As our colleagues will recall, lawsuits in the early 1990s brought logging in that region to a complete halt. The Northwest Forest Plan, which was the result of lengthy and often painful negotiations, allowed timber sales to go forward, provided that there was an adequate basis to make an informed decision. The agreement provides the best hope of sustained yield and multiple use. This latest ruling by the Western District Court of Washington is a reminder that the agreement is the operating plan for the forests, and that guidance memorandum cannot exempt the Forest Service from its duty. This ruling will delay timber sales but only until the Forest Service completes the work laid out in the plan. Of the 80 surveys in question, all but 13 have protocols developed that will allow survey work to move forward. These decisions are not a result of overstepping by the courts. They are a result of the courts examining the rules the Forest Service laid out for itself and merely requiring the Forest Service to operate by the rules it adopted. Let me quote from the Eleventh Circuit decision: While the Forest Service's interpretation of its Forest Plan should receive great deference from reviewing courts, courts must overturn agency actions which do not scrupulously follow the regulations and procedures promulgated by the agency itself. I suggest to our colleagues who support section 329 that we should not as a result of one court decision turn our backs on the necessity of developing good information on plant and animal populations in our national forests. This data is the basis of the good science we keep talking about. It will add to our knowledge. In fact, most forest districts already have a substantial amount of data and continue to develop more. The majority of sales are moving forward under the existing rules and plans. It would be a mistake to let delays in a few timber sales negate all of the important work that is now being done. Section 329 effectively stops data gathering for the coming fiscal year. In addition, section 329 establishes a new standard to be applied by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for determining when to approve timber sales. However, according to the agencies that are required to implement the change, rather than speed timber sales up, it would slow them down. To understand the effect of this change, we ought to hear from those who will be responsible for implementing the change. In a statement issued jointly by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior they say: [I]f this rider were adopted, tens of thousands of individual management activities and planning efforts would be subject to a new legal standard. This would have the unintended effect of increasing project costs and increasing delays in order to conduct time- consuming reviews of administrative records to document compliance with the new standard. Increased litigation and delay could also be expected as plaintiffs seek to define the new standard in court. In an effort to free up a limited number of timber sales in Georgia and the Pacific Northwest, the Senate would unnecessarily override the Federal Court ruling, agency regulations, and resource management plans requiring the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to obtain and use current and appropriate information for wildlife and other resources before conducting planning and management activities. Moreover, the bill language applies not just to timber sales decisions and required surveys in the forests of the Southeast and Pacific Northwest, but to all activities for which authorization is required on all lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. As such, it could result in far-reaching, unintended negative consequences. In short, the Secretaries who would be required to implement the new standard write that: Section 329 is unnecessary, confusing, difficult to interpret, and wasteful. If enacted, it will likely result in costly delays, conflicts, and lawsuits with no clear benefit to the public or the health of public lands. The Forest Service, which is charged with implementing the court's ruling, is acting. In the southern Appalachian forests, they are modifying the forest plan and have developed guidance to help meet the court's directives. In the Northwest, they are completing a supplemental environmental impact statement that will respond to the court's concerns. Incidentally, the SEIS was in process before the court ruled because the Forest Service had already recognized that the plan needed adjusting, and the plan has mechanisms in it to accommodate change. The Forest Service does not believe this rider is necessary in order to approve timber sales. In fact, they believe it will interfere with timber sales. I want to emphasize an additional problem with section 329. It does not just apply to timber sales. Again, according to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior: The provision which applies for one year would apply to all of the nearly 450 million acres of land managed by the two agencies and would apply to all management activities undertaken by the bureaus, not just timber sales. We should not be putting a rider on an appropriations bill to lower the standard for government agencies in the hope that it might pass unnoticed. One of the reasons people get cynical about their government is that it does not always do what it says it will do. In this case, we would lower the bar for agencies that do not want the bar lowered. The Forest Service believes that it can do the job right. We would do a disservice to this body and to the people who expect us to protect our national treasure by not demanding that Federal agencies make informed decisions with adequate data. What section 329 proposes to do is lower the standard the first time that agency fails to meet it. I believe this is the wrong approach. I believe we should strike section 329 from this appropriations bill and that the Federal Government should comply with the laws we have passed and the rules it has established and the plans it has adopted. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first let me address my colleague and friend from Idaho, who is one of the four Senators who have spoken against this amendment on the floor and tell him first of all I appreciate the sincerity of his remarks and the concern he shows, and his colleagues have shown, for those who face economic hardship because of any decision that might be impacted by the Federal Government. I would have to say in particular, with respect to the distinguished Senator from Oregon talking about some of the people in communities which he has visited, the same phenomena has occurred to all of us at one time or another. All of us truly feel the intense pain that those families suffer. In many cases that suffering comes to them because of activities that have been taken in terms of Federal trade policy, sometimes because of innovation in various manufacturing techniques, modernization of equipment--lots of reasons that long and established communities are adversely affected. Any of us who do not relate to that and have a sense of compassion--we may disagree on a particular item at a particular time, about what is the best way to approach a particular challenge that we face, but I don't think any of us lack compassion for those families or want to be in a position where we are doing anything that hurts more than helps. In this particular instance, I would have to say one of the comments made by my friend from Oregon was ``let science decide.'' That is really what is at issue here. We see the issue differently. But in this particular case, science has determined at this point, and the board of scientists the distinguished Senator referred to has suggested, that there are means of establishing the health of the forest that will require indicator species measurement. None of the decisions require counting all species, every single species. In fact, the only species I am aware of that is measured in terms of every single member of the species is the Condor count. That is a truly endangered species. I know of no other. There may be. In any event, we are talking about doing something. The reason these cases were decided the way they were and other cases were decided differently is because the rules that had been established, the plan that had been established by the Forest Service, and that they had agreed to follow, wasn't followed. The Northwest forest plan came about in very large part because of the timber wars, the very difficult situation that every Member of the Northwest delegation of this body remembers. As a result of the compromise that was entered into, opened up some logging--I recognize the 80-percent factor the Senator from Idaho and others have used--at least some logging was conducted and the gridlock that had existed prior to that time did not continue. They have been operating under this provision, the Northwest Forest Plan since that time. I have heard repeated references to costs that are clearly beyond anything anyone associated with the Forest Service, BLM, the Interior Department, or the Agriculture Department would consider possible, or can even understand frankly, because we have claims of $5 billion to $9 billion, and no one in the administration is talking about anything that would cost anything in that range. The essence of the court decisions were on a very limited scope. The court said, if you tell us that this is the plan you want to put into effect, that you agree to put into effect, then the least you ought to do is try to follow that plan. The problem in the Eleventh Circuit, if my memory serves me correctly, was with 32 of the 37 species, absolutely nothing was done. The court is in the position of saying, we will give great deference to the Forest Service, to other administrative agencies, to regulators, to anyone else who is involved, but you cannot simply do nothing and expect us to simply say it is OK not to pay attention to your own rules and regulations. That is what both of the cases are about, and that is what distinguishes the cases which trouble the Senators from the Northwest from the other cases. In the other cases, the judge was able to rule in such a way that the logging could continue, whatever land disturbing operations could continue. We are not talking about a situation where every single species, some of which none of us could identify if we were given a chart of all the species involved because they are so rare, had to be counted. That is what indicator species are for, to simply be able to track in some limited way some species as an indication of how all the species are faring under various changes that might affect those particular forests or those particular areas. That is really all we are saying. In this particular case, the Forest Service, BLM, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture, and the heads of those agencies have said that section 329 is likely to cost a great deal more money, is not likely to do exactly what they purport to address but have exactly the opposite effect. In this particular case, the Agriculture Department, the Interior Department, the BLM, and the Forest Service make it very clear that what is proposed is more likely to be counterproductive, but that is beside the point. They are acknowledging that a standard has been recognized by the Eleventh Circuit case and that they did not meet that standard. They believe they should be held to the standard, and that is what they are prepared to do. That is what adaptive management practice is all about. This is not the kind of absolute foreclosure that my friends on the other side have represented it as. Plans are underway right now to address the challenges that were put to the management agencies by both decisions. I submit the concern for the Ninth Circuit case is considerably greater on the part of my friends from the northwestern part of the United States than the Eleventh Circuit. Nonetheless, the decisions simply said to the Federal agency involved: If you say these are the rules that you are going to follow and you agree these are the rules that should be followed, and the scientific community has said this is the way we can make the rational assessments and achieve the kind of balance that we are looking for, then you ought to do that. I share the frustration. There is always an enormous frustration factor when you are dealing with a situation that seems to be beyond the control of those who are most affected by it. I am particularly sensitive to the State of Idaho where so much of the land is owned by the Federal Government, owned by the people of the United States, and that makes this forum for decisionmaking so much more important, in many cases, than it is for other States where the percentage of our total land, the percentage of our total economic activity is less affected by decisions that are made right in this particular Chamber. The bottom line again is simply if the agency agrees to a particular course of action, if the action is rational, and reflects the fact we are not using the forest just as a place where logging can be carried out, but where recreational and other environmental elements are valued, then that one activity must be balanced against the others. In this particular case, a rational approach has been devised. It is flexible. It is being addressed at this particular moment. An additional environmental impact statement is in the process of preparation. The only real change that will come about from where the law is now, the only real change is whether or not the public ought to have an opportunity to participate and comment on the process. That is the only real change that would be brought about by this particular rider, other than attempting to legislate on an appropriations bill, thus bypassing the administration, regardless of what party is in power, and bypassing the legislative process, bypassing the authorizing committee to which these arguments could be addressed. I am not at all insensitive to the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues who represent this particular area. Indeed, I want to work with them and the Forest Service, the BLM, the Interior Department, and the Agriculture Department to see if we cannot find ways to address the specific problems that those communities, particularly those that have no other opportunity for economic activity, are faced with at this particular time. The way to do it is not to put an environmental rider on an Interior appropriations bill which bypasses the Federal administrative process, bypasses the legislative process, and simply attempts to write into law something that has not been approved by either section and which is, indeed, actively opposed by representatives for both. Mr. President, I see no one else who I believe wishes to address this particular matter. We will have an opportunity to provide closing arguments tomorrow before this is taken up. I do not believe we have asked for the yeas and nays. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, seeing my friend from Texas on the floor, knowing that she has plans to address another of the pending amendments, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Not on this amendment, Mr. President, but I would like to make a statement at the appropriate time on this legislation.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I add my voice in support of the National Endowment of the Arts, and in opposition to Senator Smith's amendment. The NEA continues to provide valuable seed money to support a range of worthy endeavors, such as orchestras, inner-city arts outreach programs and efforts to preserve vanishing American cultural institutions. In addition, the NEA plays a strong role in promoting private investment in the arts and helps to bring culture to those Americans who are ordinarily unable to afford access to the arts. As a country, we ought to continue to support these efforts. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Reserving the right to object, may I ask a question of the majority leader. Is it the majority leader's intention to return to the underlying bill, the Interior appropriations bill, at the conclusion of consideration of the tax bill today?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, continuing to reserve the right to object, I ask the majority leader, without specifically asking for an additional unanimous consent request, that if it is his intention to proceed, those of us who have been waiting through two sessions to either raise points of order, offer amendments, or whatever the case may be, to the Interior appropriations bill, might be able to do so tonight after conclusion of this bill. I am in full agreement with the expedition of a number of matters that have been pending on this floor, particularly some of the appointments. While I may not favor the tax bill that will be taken up this afternoon, I am in favor of moving the trains. With that, if the majority leader is prepared to give that verbal understanding his concurrence, I will not object.

Mr. ROBB. Will the majority leader include that particular provision in his unanimous consent request?

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from New York, and mentor to us all. His presence, at the end of this Congress, will be missed in ways I do not think any of us fully appreciate. First of all, I want to fully agree with the comments made by the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Massachusetts. I will try not to repeat those comments. My particular frustration in dealing with the bill before us today is that we are considering this huge tax cut, one which would normally be designed to stimulate the economy, and yet no economist I am aware of has suggested that such a stimulus is needed at this particular moment. In fact, what is truly needed is not being done. This bill does nothing to address the two most pressing structural systemic problems, Social Security and Medicare. Instead of trying to bring about some responsible changes to the Social Security system and the Medicare system, we are taking a projected surplus we hope will occur, but may or may not occur, and spend it in a way that provides a stimulus to those who least need a stimulus at this particular time. Indeed, it is very hard to find someone who represents the group who will be most benefited by this bill who is actually asking at this time that we provide them with a huge tax cut or an economic stimulus. We just do not need it. If we are going to enact a tax cut, it is my view that it should be in some targeted areas we know we are going to have to take care of anyhow. For example, we should have a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit, not cutting it back. Instead, we go through the same charade we go through each year, which makes it difficult for those who must make decisions about investing in research and development to make the kinds of decisions they need to make. The bill also fails to target tax credits for investment in information technology training, which is so clearly the cutting edge of our economy today. We are not making those investments in this bill. What we are doing is making a huge tax cut available to those who are disproportionately in the middle- and upper-income brackets in this country, and not providing the basic investment in infrastructure. My personal preference is to not have a tax bill at this point. If we cannot do better than the one we have, I would rather have nothing, notwithstanding some of the good things upon which both sides agree, and simply begin to pay down the debt. We are in such a hurry, however, to deliver the good news that we are going to give money back to you that ought to be yours in the first place, even if we are only going to give you $4 billion of it back in the year 2000. Even though it is only $4 billion, those who support this bill are attempting to take credit for full $792 billion, the lion's share of which will not be until the end of the next decade. This bill is going to lock in statutorily those changes which will make it very difficult for those who serve in succeeding Congresses and succeeding administrations to make the corrections they may well be called upon to make. I am certain we will hear a scream from those on the other side of the aisle if we even think about what could be scored in any way, shape, or form as a tax increase, even though it would only be correcting a tax cut that most people who have common sense and have some sense of fiscal responsibility view as a mistake today. I will not extend the debate. I will only observe that even though I disagreed with the original proposal, there were a small number from this side of the aisle who were willing to go along in the hope that some sort of compromise could be reached. And we took a bad bill and made it worse, and drove off the Democrats who were prepared to participate in a bipartisan solution. So it does go to what the Senator from Massachusetts just suggested. It is a political bill. It is regrettable because we have an opportunity, for the first time in a long time, to do something really fiscally responsible in terms of the kinds of obligations that we have in this body and the other body, in concert with the White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I regret we are in a situation that we cannot act in a fiscally responsible manner and address the true pressing needs, such as Social Security and Medicare, instead of what we are doing. I know the time has expired. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this particular measure, and to work eventually with those on the other side of the aisle to come up with a constructive, fiscally responsible measure to meet our legitimate needs. With that, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York, as well as praise, although I am not in agreement with, the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Delaware. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, in discussions with the manager of the bill, the majority leader, and the Democratic leader, and understanding that the matter that I was going to raise would require fairly extensive debate and then a vote, thus delaying the departure of Members for the August recess--and remembering how fond Members have been of not bothering Members of this body when they were the last obstacle between leaving on the August recess and making one last vote--I have agreed with the distinguished manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, not to offer the amendment. He has agreed to recognize me first when the bill is next before the Senate. With that in mind, and knowing that many of our colleagues are, as I speak, heading for the airports, I will not offer the amendment I had planned to offer this evening. I will offer it when we next take up the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I like to take a few moments to express my concern about funding for the Maggie Walker National Historic Site in Richmond. While construction funding was included in the budget submitted by the National Park Service, funding was not included in the Interior appropriations bill before us today. I want to make sure that the managers of this legislation are aware of just how important the Maggie Walker project is to both the Richmond community and to our nation. I would also like to urge them to provide this funding. Maggie Walker, who lived in Richmond from her birth in 1867 until her death in 1934, epitomized triumph in the face of adversity. In an era that glorified male achievement, and in a part of the nation that did not encourage African American leadership, she stood out as a very successful member of society despite the fact that she was both female and African American. Ms. Walker both succeeded within the system and pushed for change. She established a newspaper. She organized a student strike to protest unequal graduation ceremonies. She founded a bank and was the first woman in the nation to serve as president of a bank. She was also actively involved in founding the Richmond chapter of the NAACP, and throughout her life, Maggie Walker championed humanitarian causes. The Maggie Walker National Historic Site in Richmond is comprised of the Walker home, and several adjacent support buildings. The Walker residence itself was built in 1883 and purchased by the Walker family in 1904. The residence served as Ms. Walker's home untile the year of her death. The Walker family sold the home to the National Park Service in 1979. Furnishings throughout the home are original family pieces. The National Park Service budget request is necessary to literally protect the site from destruction, as well as for safety and historic preservation. Funding will support a fire suppression system for the main Walker home, and will restore the exteriors of the adjacent support buildings. These structures will be used for interpretive and education facilities, and for museum storage.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and I would like to bring to the Managers' attention a serious concern involving the City of Virginia Beach and the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior. In my view, the city has been unfairly treated, and I hope we can rectify this matter during conference negotiations on the Interior Appropriations Bill.

Mr. ROBB. That's right. More important, we believe that not charging the city would have been the best policy decision. First, the sand paid for by the city protected federal land. MMS guidelines state that ``when OCS sand is used for protection of Federally-owned land (e.g. for military bases, national parks, and refuges), a fee would not be assessed.'' That is the case in this instance. Sandbridge beach is crucial to protecting the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is federally owned. The fragile beach acts as a barrier island as the fresh water/brackish environment is three feet lower than the ocean adjacent to Sandbridge. If this beach is not maintained, an inlet could form, changing the ecology to a salt water estuary causing great harm to the Refuge and also disrupting one of the potable water sources for the City of Chesapeake. Additionally, the project is directly adjacent to the Dam Neck Fleet Combat Training Center. The beach at this Center was recently renourished with an 850,000 cubic year nourishment project. Sandbridge acts as a feeder beach for the Dam Neck area and also provides protection to the flank of the training Center. In short, the City of Virginia Beach used its own funds to protect federal property. Compensation is only fair. I'd like to add that fair compensation is something the City of Virginia Beach had assumed in good faith would be forthcoming. The City acted in an emergency to protect the beach. This beach is a Congressionally-authorized project and is being constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers led the city to believe that it would be compensated. In fact, the Corps has already used approximately 2 million of its federal dollars to design the project, is acting as construction manager, and considered this renourishment to be the first phase of this project authorized by Congress in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act. In addition, the City of Virginia Beach was assessed a free by the MMS for mining the sand used to construct the federal project at Sandbridge solely because the City, not the federal government, fronted the cost of the construction.