Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, it is. I do not believe that the grant recipients, many of whom are States, should be penalized because we were unable to pass a bill prior to October 1.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 3671, the Fish and Wildlife Programs Improvement Act. I believe that this bill will enhance State wildlife conservation programs across the country. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. The Pittman-Robertson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act created user-pay benefit trust funds. Together, these programs are called the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs and are known more generally as the Federal Aid Program. The States are primarily responsible for managing the Federal Aid Program. They identify eligible projects and then pay for the projects up front. The projects must be directly related to old and sport fish restoration efforts. Projects that are eligible for funding through the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop Breaux Programs include: acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat; hunter education; wildlife population surveys; construction of facilities to improve public access; management of wildlife areas fish stocking, boating and fishing access; and facility development and maintenance. States are reimbursed for up to 75 percent of the total cost of each project from the Federal Aid funds. I am offering a manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute that makes several important changes to the Federal Aid bill that reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I believe that in adopting these changes, we will not only improve the bill, but will also ensure that this important legislation is signed into law this year. In addition, the manager's package includes the National Fish and Wildlife Refuge System Centennial bill, and reauthorized the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This package has been negotiated with the House Committee on Natural Resources. Earlier this year, the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water held a hearing on the Fish and Wildlife Service's Administration of the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Acts and what we discovered was shocking. The Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Restoration Funds were created over 50 years ago. Congress intended to allow sportsmen to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the fields, streams and great outdoors that they enjoy so much. These two programs together authorize the collection of excise taxes from the manufacturers and importers of hunting and fishing equipment. Congress entrusted the Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Federal Aid Division, with the responsibility of managing these programs and distributing the funds to the States. Unfortunately, a report issued by the General Accounting Office indicates that the Fish and Wildlife Service has violated that trust. These are significant wildlife programs, with substantial resources to fund them. Last year alone, sportsmen contributed over $430 million to the programs. Every time a hunter buys a gun, or an angler buys a rod, they know a portion of the cost is supposed to be given to the States to fund conservation projects, such as fish stocking or habitat restoration. I say ``supposed to'' because GAO recently found that not all of the money the States are entitled to is, in fact, being given to them. Both the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Acts allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to reserve a percentage of the mounts received from the excise tax. However, the Acts also require that any excess amounts not needed for administration of the programs be distributed among the States. Unfortunately, for years, the Fish and Wildlife Service just ignored that requirement and shortchanged the States. The problems that plague these programs are numerous. The Service created several grant programs which they had, at best, questionable authority to do. Initially, they failed to account for millions of dollars. They ignored their own established guidelines for approving travel. This is unacceptable behavior. I believe that the manager's amendment will put an end to the mismanagement that plagues the programs today. At the same time, it will institute a more effective way in which to manage these programs in the future. We address the problems that were identified in the GAO report and in the hearing by making four fundamental changes to the wildlife restoration and sport fish programs. These changes are intended to enhance accountability within the Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the administration of the Federal Aid Program; to provide further clarity regarding the use of administrative funds; to encourage safe hunting through education; and to provide additional flexibility to the States for regional conservation projects. First, the manager's amendment authorizes $18 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $16.4 million in fiscal year 2003 and subsequent years, with an increase relative to the Consumer Price Index for the Secretary of the Interior to administer both the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Programs. I felt that it was extremely important for the Secretary to have enough resources to administer the program effectively, but not so much money that there would be an incentive to waste it needlessly. Although I am confident that the program can run effectively on the authorized amount, it is extremely important to revisit this issue in several years. This is particularly important because the administration was unable to justify many of its costs. The manager's amendment requires a biennial audit that will give the Committee additional information on whether or not the authorized amount needs to be adjusted. Second, the manager's amendment enumerates legitimate administrative costs and limits the use of Federal Aid funds to those expenses. The General Accounting Office investigation found that the Fish and Wildlife Service, among other things, failed to maintain adequate controls over funds, expenditures, and grants, and used administrative funds inconsistently among different FWS regional offices. By specifically listing what constitutes appropriate administrative costs, these problems should not arise in the future. Third, the manager's amendment creates a new Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Grant Program authorized at $7.5 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8 million in fiscal year 2003 and every year thereafter. The authorized funds would be provided to the States in the form of direct grants. Under current law, States are authorized to use half of the revenue collected from taxes on handguns and archery equipment for hunter education and the development of target ranges. This new provision would allow any State that is fully utilizing the authorized amount for these purposes to spend the grant money on any project that is authorized in the Pittman-Robertson Act. States that are spending less than the authorized amount would be required to use the grant funds for hunter education and range development until they utilize the amount authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Act for those purposes. At that point, the States can spend any remaining funds above the authorized level on hunter education, range development or any other project that is authorized in Pittman-Robertson. In my home State of New Hampshire, for example, the Department of Fish and Game is authorized to use $270 thousand of Pittman-Robertson funds on hunter education and range development, but is currently only spending $266 thousand. Under this bill, New Hampshire would be required to spend $4 thousand of its grant money on hunter education and range development; after that, however, the State would have the discretion to spend the remaining amount on any project that is consistent with the purposes of the Pittman-Robertson Act. This strikes a good balance between the interests of the hunting community that wanted states to spend the 50 percent level authorized under the law, and the States who want discretion to spend Pittman-Robertson funds to meet their priorities, both education and conservation programs. Finally, the manager's amendment authorizes a new Multistate Conservation Grant Program at $6 million to allow for Federal Aid funds to be used for regional projects. The Multistate Grant program requires the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies International to submit a list to the Secretary of the Interior recommending projects that should receive funding. The bill as reported out of Committee prohibited the International from considering any grant submitted by an organization that opposes hunting or fishing. Shortly before the markup, we realized this approach raised First Amendment concerns, and I promised to work with interested parties to resolve this problem. The manager's amendment prohibits any grant funds from supporting, in whole or in part, any activity that promotes opposition to hunting and fishing. Any organization can apply for a grant but it can't use these funds in any activity that targets the individuals who pay the excise tax. This is a common sense solution that protects the first amendment rights of all, without penalizing sportsmen who help fund the programs. This manager's amendment also reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984. The manager's amendment makes important changes in the Foundation's charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on its fine record of providing funding for the conservation of our nation's fish, wildlife and plant resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984 to bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the Foundation has made more than 3,400 grants totaling over $435 million. This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few. The Foundation has funded these programs by raising private funds to match federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 basis. During this time of fiscal constraint, this is an impressive record of leveraging federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are covered by separate private sources, which means that Federal and private dollars given for conservation are spent only on conservation projects. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to implement solutions to some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the U.S. due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners bought Greenland Salmon quotas. I, like many others in Congress, want the Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. This legislation is quite simple. The manager's amendment would expand the Foundation's governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of individuals with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. Also, it would authorize appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through 2003. Finally, the manager's amendment would authorize the ``National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commemoration Act of 2000.'' This landmark provision commemorates the centennial of the first national wildlife refuge in the United States, established on March 14, 1903, by a great man and conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt. By setting aside land at Indian River Lagoon on Pelican Island, Florida as a haven for birds, President Roosevelt began a conservation legacy known as the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into the most comprehensive system of lands devoted to wildlife protection and management in the world--spanning nearly 93 million acres across the United States and its territories. By placing special emphasis on conservation, our nation's network of refuges ensures the continued protection of our wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species, and land areas with significant wildlife-oriented recreational, historical and cultural value. Currently, there are more than 500 refuges in the United States and its territories, providing important habitat for 700 bird species, 220 mammal species, 250 species of amphibians and reptiles, and over 200 fish species. The Refuge System also hosts some of our country's premiere fisheries, and serves a vital role in the protection of threatened and endangered species by preserving their critical habitats. Approximately 98 percent of the Refuge System land is open to the public. Each year, the System attracts more than 34 million visitors to participate in a variety of recreational activities that include observing and photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting and taking part in system-sponsored educational programs. By providing the public with an opportunity to participate in these activities, refuges promote a sense of appreciation for the natural wonders of this nation and emphasize our important role as stewards of these lands. The manager's amendment commemorates the Refuge System by creating a Commission that will oversee the Centennial anniversary and promote public awareness and understanding of the importance of refuges to our nation. Additionally, the manger's amendment directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a long-term plan for the Refuge System that will enable the Service to look ahead and determine the future needs and priorities of the system network. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support adoption of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As you know, under current law, States are authorized to use one half of the revenue collected from taxes on handguns and archery equipment for hunter education and the development of target ranges. Under our provision, any State that is fully utilizing the authorized amount for these purposes can spend the grant money on any project that is authorized in the Pittman-Robertson Act. States that are spending less than the authorized amount have to use the grant funds for hunter education and range development until they utilize the amount authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Act for those purposes. The States can then spend any remaining funds above the authorized level on hunter education, range development or any other project that is authorized in Pittman-Robertson. For example, say New Hampshire is authorized to use $270 thousand of Pittman-Robertson funds on hunter education and range development but is only spending $266 thousand. New Hampshire would be then required to spend $4 thousand of its grant money on hunter education and range development. After that New Hampshire could use any remaining amount on any project that is consistent with the purposes of the Pittman-Robertson Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, it is. This bill requires that the various interests involved in the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs be fully and meaningfully consulted in the process, as indicated by the Senator. This should be carefully adhered to in the development of future recommendations.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I agree with the chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am delighted to accommodate my friend from Idaho.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I agree that Pittman-Robertson lands can certainly be used for field trials in a way that is consistent with the act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. By approving section 132, we intend to elevate the role of the head of the Federal Aid program, as part of our overall effort, in this bill, to give the program the full attention that it deserves. We do not intend, however, to mandate a change in the general Fish and Wildlife Service's administrative structure. No case has been made for such a change, and it could potentially be counterproductive. Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have two specific concerns regarding FEMA and the Section 404 program. First, I understand that a new rule on nationwide permits was issued by the Corps effective June 7, 2000. Nationwide permits are a streamlined permitting process that apply to minor wetlands disturbances that have a minimal impact on the nation's wetlands. These permits are very important to the operation of the program since as many as 85 percent of the permits issued by the Corps each year are nationwide permits. One aspect of this new rule makes it very difficult to obtain nationwide permits in the one hundred year floodplain. According to the Corps, 53 percent of the floodplain is subject to the jurisdiction of the Section 404 program. The rule provides that certain nationwide permits can be obtained in a portion of the hundred year floodplain if approved by FEMA or the local flood control agency. Congress has not authorized a role for FEMA in the Section 404 permitting process. Is it your understanding that this new rule will be implemented in such a fashion that FEMA will not become a regulatory agency with respect to Section 404 nationwide permits?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Missouri. Assisting Veterans With Disabilities

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator for his attention to my concerns about FEMA's role in the 404 program. I would also call the Committee's attention to the related problem of the issuance of individual 404 permits in the 100 year floodplain. I believe it is important to emphasize that, just as in the case of nationwide permits. FEMA does not have a regulatory role in the issuance of individual permits under Section 404. Whether or not there should be such a policy in the hundred year floodplain is an issue that Congress may wish to address in the future. However, for now, I believe that it must be restated that FEMA has not been authorized a decisional role in whether or not an individual Section 404 permit should be issued nor the conditions of a Section 404 permit. We do not need a third federal agency with a decisional role in the Section 404 permitting program. Obviously, FEMA may comment on applications for Section 404 permits, as may any citizen or federal agency, but that opportunity must not be transformed into a decisional role. Does the Senator agree with me on this point? Is it the Senator's understanding that the funds in this bill will not be used by FEMA to play a decisional role in the issuance of individual Section 404 permits in the hundred year floodplain?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee that developed the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. I am equally proud to have served as a Conferee to resolve differences between our bill and the one that passed the House of Representatives. This bill is important to our men and women who serve this Nation every day. As the explosion today in Yemen demonstrates, America's great military men and women put their lives on the line for us every day. That sacrifice demands our attention and our support. This bill is another step to help us pull the U.S. military out of the nosedive created by this Administration. The number of deployments the Clinton/Gore administration committed us to has forced the military to use its limited funds for operations vice maintaining our forces. Readiness is at an all-time low. We are cannibalizing parts of our forces to keep the other parts running. That is wrong. Our men and women in uniform deserve better. This bill is a step in the right direction, but we still need more. I will fight for more again next year. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have lauded the benefits of this bill, so I will not repeat them all here. However, several points I feel are very important to note for the American people. This bill authorizes $309.9 billion in military spending, $4.6 billion above the President's budget request. It authorizes $63.2 billion for procurement, $2.6 billion above the President's budget request. It authorizes $38.9 billion for research and development, $1.1 billion above the President's budget request. This bill provides a decent pay raise--3.7 percent. It approves permanent comprehensive health care benefits for military retirees and benefits for military families. It also provides pharmacy benefits. When our military men and women put their lives on the line for our freedom, we owe them this commitment. This bill is a start, but we must do better. We need to expand our missile defense capabilities to fully leverage land, sea, air, and space options. Our ship-building rate is below that needed to sustain our aging naval force in the long term. We also need to be investing in space power programs. For 8 years, this Administration has ignored programs like the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite system and the military space plane. I also want to mention two important items which I fought vigorously for in this Bill that my colleagues have not mentioned. First, this bill attempts to right a grievous wrong that was committed over 50 years ago when Captain Charles Butler McVay III was tried and convicted--unjustly I believe--for the sinking of his ship, the U.S.S. Indianapolis, shortly before the end of the Second World War. This remains the greatest sea disaster in the history of the U.S. Navy. 880 of the 1,197 men aboard perished. Many of those who survived the actual sinking were left without lifeboats, food, or water and faced shark attacks for 4 days and 5 nights. This legislation recognizes Captain McVay's lack of culpability for the tragic loss of the ship, urges a correction of his military record to reflect his exoneration, and prompts the Navy to award a Navy Unit Commendation to the U.S.S. Indianapolis and her final crew. Captain McVay was not given intelligence reports about Japanese submarine activity in the ship's path; he was not granted an escort to help protect his ship; and he had taken prudent steps to protect the vessel. Not all of this information was made available to the court- martial board. Several hundred U.S. ships were lost in combat to enemy action during World War II, yet only Captain McVay was subjected to a court-martial. This language does not erase the conviction of Captain McVay from his record. We in Congress do not have the authority to do that. It must remain on his record as a stain upon the conscience of the Navy until this or some future President sees fit to order that it be expunged. This resolution does, however, represent acknowledgment from one branch of the Federal Government he served so capably that Captain McVay's conviction was morally wrong and that he should no longer be viewed by the American people as responsible for the horrible tragedy which haunted him to the end of his life. Second, this bill closes a loop hole in our national security regarding the granting of security clearances. Everyday, we entrust our national secrets to individuals to develop weapon systems, intelligence capabilities, war plans, and the like to defend this nation in war and peace. The American people demand these individuals be of the highest integrity. Yet, it came to my attention that we have not been maintaining that standard. Persons with criminal track records have been granted security clearances. We have even granted clearances to murderers. The addition I fought for in this bill is simple. It would prevent the Department of Defense from granting security clearances to those who have been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. As I have said, this bill will strengthen our military. It is a step in the right direction, but we are not finished. I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise today to oppose the conference report to the Transportation appropriations bill. I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. These include: $2 million of the extension of the Commuter Rail line from Boston to Lowell, Massachusetts into Nashua, New Hampshire; A provision that designates the I-93 project as a national model for implementation of environmental streamlining; $1.5 million for improvements to U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire; $500,000 for the Concord 20/20 Vision project; $250,000 for the Bedford, New Hampshire Route 101 Corridor Study and Improvements; $200,000 for a Feasibility Study of a High Speed Rail Corridor from Boston, MA to Burlington, VT, through New Hampshire; $10 million nationally for the Historic Covered Bridge Program, under which N.H. communities can apply for funds to repair covered bridges; $12 million for construction of the Broad Street Parkway in Nashua, NH; Over $137 million to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation under the states' federal highway allocation authorized by the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). But this bill contains several objectionable departures from TEA-21, which are under the clear jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the authorizing committee which I chair. First, I am concerned about the so-called .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) provision to mandate a nationwide standard for state drunk driving laws by threatening sanctions on highway funding. In TEA-21 we specifically rejected this approach in favor of incentives to encourage stronger drunk driving laws. Congress worked hard to reach this compromise during TEA-21 so that states could address highway safety and drunk driving in a variety of ways, without the federal government forcing them to focus on whether their laws contain .08 as the magic number. This heavy handed approach that was pushed through on an appropriations bill threatens to take away highway funds from 32 states. I will carry my strong opposition to funding sanctions into the next transportation reauthorization bill, and I hope we have seen the last of this kind of federal intervention. On this issue of funding, in TEA-21 we guaranteed collections into the Highway Trust Fund would be redistributed to the states and to DOT discretionary programs. When these collections are above TEA-21 estimates, the additional funds, called RABA funds, are distributed according to TEA-21. This bill makes several major and minor adjustments to the RABA funds--including failing to provide for some programs, and diverting these funds to special projects. On top of this, the bill also takes an extra $1.4 billion in funds from the Highway Trust fund to go to special projects. This money is not authorized to be spent in TEA-21. This money comes out of Highway Trust Fund balances. This is like the balance in your checkbook that is there to pay outstanding bills and checks that are waiting to clear. In TEA-21 we crafted careful compromises over how Highway Trust Fund dollars are spent and distributed. This bill ignores our work and includes page after page of earmarks for unauthorized projects. We have not been consulted on the viability of these projects, we have no assurance that these projects are important, whether they have met environmental clearances, or whether the funds provided are based on engineering estimates for these projects. The Highway Trust Fund money is to be distributed to states where they have local control over which projects are funded and when. This bill attempts to circumvent this process with funding earmarks. I object to this intrusion into the Highway Trust Fund. It is unwise to pick and choose highway projects to insert in the appropriations bill. As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this Transportation conference report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have done and appreciate the support they have given to important New Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I oppose the conference report.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise today to oppose the Conference Report to the Interior Appropriations bill. I want to begin by praising my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations who have worked so hard on this bill and conference report. I know they have faced many difficult issues, competing demands for limited resources, and the pressure of time as this Congress winds down. And there are many good provisions in this bill, including several that will benefit my home State of New Hampshire. The bill includes two projects that have been particularly important to me and for which I requested funding--the Lamprey River & St. Gaudens. I appreciate the efforts of the Appropriations Committee to provide that funding. Unfortunately, notwithstanding these and other good provisions, the bill fails to deliver what we as elected officials have promised the American people. I want to take this opportunity to explain, especially to my fellow Granite Staters, why I am voting against the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. First, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not include full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund or for the many important programs included in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. In failing to provide this funding, I believe that we have truly squandered an opportunity that may never exist again. Even more importantly, I believe we failed to live up to the promise we made years ago to dedicate a percentage of the revenues from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf to the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, lands and waters. Congress came close to keeping that promise when the House passed by an overwhelming margin of three to one a landmark conservation bill--the so-called Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a companion bill in July. The CARA bill reflects our collective commitment to investing in the environment for ourselves and for future generations. I am proud that I was able to play a part in bringing attention to the bill in the Senate. On May 24, 2000, I held a hearing on the Senate bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Although that Committee, which I chair, did not have primary jurisdiction over the bill, I felt it was important to hold the hearing to help build support for the legislation and to highlight some of the very important programs that would be enhanced by the passage of the bill. These programs included funding for the Endangered Species Act and Pittman- Robertson Act, both of which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I said it then, and I want to reaffirm it today. Now is the time for the Federal government to step up to the plate and assist in the efforts to protect our natural resources--not by grabbing up more Federal land, but by working in partnership with States and private landowners and providing much-needed funding for critically underfunded programs. The CARA bill would have done that. Instead, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes a mere shadow of the real CARA. Instead of providing full permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Interior Conference Report appropriates only $600 million for one year and only $90 million of that is allocated for stateside funding. The CARA bill I cosponsored would have provided the States with a guaranteed $450 million a year to conduct numerous worthwhile conservation projects, including creating new parks and building soccer fields. The limited appropriation provided by the Conference Report, by contrast, with no guarantees for future years, isn't CARA; it's business as usual. The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors. Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches, shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans--94 percent believe we should be spending more money on land and water conservation. I agree with those Americans who believe that it's time to invest some of the budget surplus in our environment. For years now, we have been telling the tax payers that there isn't any money available for conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the burdens of saving our land and natural resources. Well, in my opinion, those days are over. It's past time for the federal government to contribute its fair share, and the Interior Conference Report falls far short in that respect. Second, I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Conference Report provides no protections for private property rights. CARA did. The real CARA bill provided an unprecedented level of protection for the private land owner. For example, the Senate CARA bill that I cosponsored expressly prohibited the federal government from using any CARA funds to implement regulations on private property. In addition, all Federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water Conservation Fund would have been subject to significantly more restrictions than under current law. Not one of those private property rights protections is included in the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. Third, I cannot support the language in the Conference Report that establishes a vague new Federal ``wildlife conservation program'' that imposes new, but undefined, obligations on the States and gives broad discretion to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to define those obligations. The Interior Appropriations Conference Report directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to create a new $300 million state grant program subject only to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations. That is inappropriate. The Committee on Environment and Public Works is responsible for overseeing wildlife programs; it is our prerogative and responsibility to review, discuss, and ultimately authorize any wildlife program. Yet, this new program was inserted at the last minute, behind closed doors, without any public debate or consultation with the Committee of jurisdiction. For that reason, I must oppose its inclusion in this Conference Report. The concept may be a good one, but this is not the right process or the appropriate vehicle. Finally, I must oppose the Conference Report because of the adverse impact it will have on thousands of citizens of New Hampshire who depend upon and enjoy the White Mountain National Forest. When the Senate passed its Interior Appropriations bill in July, it included an important provision excluding the White Mountain National Forest from this Administration's broad policy of prohibiting the construction of all new roads in previously undisturbed areas of national forests, the so-called roadless policy. We excluded the White Mountain National Forest from this ``one-size-fits-all'' roadless policy, not because we want thousands of miles of new roads in the White Mountains, but because these decisions should be made at the local level through the forest planning process, by the people who live near, enjoy, and use the National Forest. I have deep concerns about the Administration's roadless policy because I believe it is intended to limit public access and legitimate public use of our national forests. But even more importantly, in the context of the White Mountain National Forest, it would specifically override an existing forest management plan that maintains a balance between economic activity, recreation and environmental protection--a forest management plan that was developed through a collaborative process involving state and local government officials, local citizens, and federal officials. I firmly believe that States and local citizens should play a significant role in making the management decisions relating to the forest lands in their communities, including the decisions about roads. It was for that reason that I strongly supported the language that was included in the Senate bill that allowed the citizens of New Hampshire to make those decisions through the forest planning process for the White Mountain National Forest, rather than simply mandating a blanket roadless policy from Washington, D.C. That important provision, however, has now been dropped from the Conference Report. I believe that Washington D.C.'s roadless policy will hurt New Hampshire. It will have significant economic, social, and ecological impacts. And it will undermine the cooperative dialogue that took place during the revision of the forest plan. Therefore, I cannot support a Conference Report that does not include language protecting the White Mountain National Forest from unnecessary and inappropriate interference from Washington's bureaucrats. The Interior Appropriations bill passed by the Senate last July also included a specific exemption for North Country residents from the user fees that the National Forest Service charges for access to the White Mountain National Forest. That exemption has now been deleted. I have long been opposed to user fees in the White Mountain National Forest because I believe it is fundamentally unfair to local residents. In areas, like the North Country of New Hampshire, where the Federal Government owns much of the land, communities lose a significant portion of their property tax base which they need to fund schools and other necessary social programs and infrastructure. Residents in these communities then have to make up the shortfall. The user fee, on top of the loss in local tax revenue, imposes an unfair burden for local citizens. It is wrong for the Federal government to charge local residents in the North Country a fee for enjoying the White Mountain National Forest when they are already subsidizing the Forest. As I stated at the beginning, there are many good provisions in this Interior Conference Report. I applaud the work that my colleagues have done and appreciate the support they have given to important New Hampshire projects. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that I oppose the Conference Report.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and urge its passage by the full Senate. This legislation represents compromise language negotiated with the House of Representatives, but, is, substantively, very similar to the bill passed by the Senate in July of this year. This bill will ensure that FEMA not only remains responsive to local communities after a disaster, but also makes disaster preparedness and mitigation a priority. Further, I am proud that this bill will also result in both short and long term savings to the American taxpayer while, at the same time, providing the states and local communities with added resources for future mitigation efforts. Through added efficiencies this bill saves billions in the long run. I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of staff members who have worked so hard on this bill. In particular, I would like to recognize Marty Hall from my committee staff; Jo-Ellen Darcy, committee staff for Senator Baucus; Andy Wheeler and Mike Murray from Senator Inhofe's staff; and Jason McNamara from Senator Graham's staff. emergency home repair assistance

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to David Villotti of Amherst, NH, on being nominated for the ``Angels in Adoption'' award. David has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of many children throughout New Hampshire. David's mission is to provide care and support to the neediest children and families in New Hampshire. David has worked to reunite ``his'' children at the Nashua Children's Home to their biological families or, if necessary, have them placed in foster care or adopted into loving families. Some of these children have experienced a tremendous amount of emotional and physical trauma. David creates an environment that is safe for these children to grow while they await word on their family situation. When David first began working at the Nashua Children's Home 15 years ago, there were 18 children in residence. Today there are 46. David and his staff continue to provide support to families while allowing children the environment that they need to grow and mature into well- adjusted teenagers and adults. I am proud to have nominated David for the ``Angels in Adoption'' award for the state of New Hampshire. David, it is an honor to serve you in the U.S. Senate. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support final passage of S. 1752, a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, CBRA. I am offering a manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute that makes several important changes to the bill that was reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. These changes have been negotiated with the House Committee on Natural Resources. I believe that in adopting these changes, we will not only improve the bill, but will also ensure that this important legislation is signed into law this year. Most people do not realize that coastal barriers are the first line of defense protecting the mainland from major storms and hurricanes. This extremely vulnerable area is under increasing pressure from development. From 1960 to 1990, the population of coastal areas increased from 80 to 110 million, and is projected to reach over 160 million by 2015. Continued development on and around coastal barriers place people, property and the environment at risk. To address this problem Congress passed CBRA in 1982. This extremely important legislation prohibits the Federal Government from subsidizing flood insurance, and providing other financial assistance, such as beach replenishment, within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, System. Nothing in CBRA prohibits development on coastal barriers; it just gets the Federal Government out of the business of subsidizing risky development. The law proved to be so successful that Congress expanded the Coastal Barrier System in 1990, with the support of the National Taxpayers Union, the American Red Cross, Coast Alliance and Tax Payers for Common Sense, to name just a few. The 1990 act doubled the size of the System to include coastal barriers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes, and additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Congress also allowed the inclusion of areas that are already protected for conservation purposes, such as parks and refuges. Currently the system is comprised of 3 million acres and 2,500 shoreline miles. Development of coastal barriers decreases their ability to absorb the force of storms and buffer the mainland. The devastating floods of Hurricane Floyd are a reminder of the susceptibility of coastal development to the power of nature. The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that 10 major disaster declarations were issued for this hurricane, more than for any other single hurricane or natural disaster. In fact, 1999 sets a record for major disaster declarations-- a total of 14 in that year alone. As the number of disaster declarations has crept up steadily since the 1980's, so has the cost to taxpayers. Congress has approved on average $3.7 billion a year in supplemental disaster aid in the 1990's, compared to less than $1 billion a year in the previous decade. Homeowners know the risk of building in these highly threatened areas. Despite this, taxpayers are continually being asked to rebuild homes and businesses in flood-prone areas. The National Wildlife Federation published a study that found that over 40 percent of the damage payments from the National Flood Insurance Program go to people who have had at least one previous claim. A New Jersey auto repair shop made 31 damage claims in 15 years. At a time when climatologists believe that we are entering a period of turbulent hurricane activity after three decades of relative calm, the safety concerns associated with continued development of coastal barrier regions must also be considered. As roadway systems have not kept up with population growth, it will become increasingly difficult to evacuate coastal areas in the face of a major storm. Beyond the economic and safety issues, another compelling reason to support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is that it contributes to the protection of our Nation's coastal resources. Coastal barriers protect and maintain the wetlands and estuaries essential to the survival of innumerable species of fish and wildlife. Large populations of waterfowl and other migratory birds depend on the habitat protected by coastal barriers for wintering areas. Undeveloped coastal barriers also provide unique recreational opportunities, and deserve protection for present and future public enjoyment. S. 1752, would reauthorize the act for 5 years and make some necessary changes to improve implementation. Due to the complexity of the coastal barrier maps, Congress periodically authorizes changes to the map, primarily to correct errors. In this process, we always ask the administration to determine whether or not a modification to the coastal barrier maps is ``technical'' in nature. This provision would require the Secretary of the Interior to use a set of criteria when making this determination. The criteria that we included in the bill is based on a rule that the administration proposed in 1982, and on guidance published in 1985. This provision would require the Secretary to determine whether the area in question, at the time of its inclusion into the system, has more than one structure per 5 acres and a ``complete set of infrastructure.'' Infrastructure, for the purposes of this bill, is described as a road with a reinforced roadbed, wastewater disposal system, electric service, and fresh water to each lot or building site. If the area, at the time of its inclusion into the system, does not meet all of the criteria, the Secretary is required to find that the area is undeveloped and therefore should remain in the system. I strongly believe this criteria is necessary because some recommendations recently made by the administration have concerned me. For example, the administration claimed in one instance that a golf cart path should be considered a road. By requiring in law that a road must contain a reinforced roadbed, Congress is indicating that we mean real roads-roads where construction work has been done by a public or private entity to ensure that the road includes surfaces, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and any traffic control devices as are necessary for safe use. This definition will preclude future golfcart paths and trails from being considered legitimate roads. S. 1752 will also require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a pilot project to determine the feasibility of creating digital versions of the coastal barrier system maps. Digital maps would improve the accuracy of the older coastal barriers maps, and make it easier for the Department of Interior and homeowners to determine where a structure is located. Eventually, we hope that the entire system can be accessed by the Internet. I believe that Congress should make every effort to conserve barrier islands and beaches. This legislation offers an opportunity to increase protection of coastal barriers, and at the same time, save taxpayers money. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1752.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act. This bill provides for an increase in foreign workers possessing special skills to enter the United States on a temporary basis in the field of information technology. This bill also encourages more young people to study mathematics, engineering, and computer science to insure that in the future, Americans can fill these high technology jobs. I support this legislation, but I do have some concerns about the potential for the theft of American technology through immigrant high- tech workers. H-1B is a visa classification. H-1B visas were created for non- immigrant foreign nationals admitted to the U.S. on a temporary basis. These H-1B visas are valid for three years and can be renewed for an additional three years. In order to qualify for H-1B visa status, an individual must be in a specialty occupation which requires a theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty area. In 1998, Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation increasing the annual ceiling for admission of H-1B visas from 115,000 in fiscal year 1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in fiscal year 2001. In 1999, it took nine months to exhaust the H-1B annual ceiling. This year the ceiling was reached in 6 months. The high tech industry has not filled these jobs and the American economy is paying the price. Another provision of this legislation addresses the long-term problem that too few U.S. students are excelling in mathematics, computer science, and engineering. We need to encourage more young people to study mathematics, engineering, and computer science and to train more Americans in these areas, so that there will be no need in the future for H-1B visas. I do have national security concerns about the H-1B visa program. I would like to see a proper screening of candidates for H-1B visas by the Immigration and Naturalization Services to ensure that these foreign nationals do not steal technology for export to a foreign government. I will be monitoring the implementation of this new law to ensure that national security and intellectual property rights are protected. We also need to make a better effort to encourage these companies to train and recruit American workers for these high paying jobs. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate support this increase in the ceiling on H-1B visas and this increase in funding to train young Americans to fill these important jobs in the high tech industry.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Donna Sytek as she retires as Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Donna's dedication to public service is remarkable, and she has done much in her twelve terms in the House to make life better for the people of our great state. Throughout her nearly quarter century as a member of the House, Donna has worked tirelessly on issues about which she feels passionate: crime, juvenile justice reform and education. She has shepherded numerous bills into law, including legislation that established the Department of Corrections, legislation that guarantees truth in sentencing; and an anti-stalking law. She also authored two amendments to the New Hampshire Constitution, including one to limit abuse of the insanity defense in 1984 and another to earmark sweepstakes revenues to education in 1990. Donna has held many leadership positions during her distinguished career as well. She has been active for many years in the National Conference of State Legislatures and currently sits on their executive committee. She is also a former chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party and a past president of the National Republican Legislators association. Donna's position in the state legislature has allowed her to travel the world to promote New Hampshire. She has visited Germany, England, Taiwan, Latvia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Israel to learn about their cultures and economies while helping them learn a little more about our great state. Donna and her husband John have been fixtures in their hometown of Salem since they moved there almost 30 years ago. They devote their time and energy to many local organizations including the Salem Boys and Girls Club and the Salem Visiting Nurse Association. Donna's dedication to her community and the legislature are exemplary, and her accomplishments have not gone unnoticed. The editors of New Hampshire Editors Magazine named her ``the most powerful woman in New Hampshire'' in 1997. Once again, I would like to thank Speaker Sytek for her tremendous service to the people of New Hampshire and wish her good health and happiness in her retirement. I am proud to call her my friend, and I am honored to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment currently at the desk be agreed to. This amendment has been agreed to by the minority.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, this is the first major piece of environmental legislation debated on the floor since I assumed the chairmanship of this committee nearly 1 year ago. I am proud to bring the Water Resources Development Act before the Senate, of which a major portion is the Everglades which I will talk about in a moment. This is a good bill. I am very proud of it. It is fiscally responsible. At the same time, it recognizes our obligation to preserve one of the most important and endangered ecosystems in the Nation, if not the world--America's Everglades. This bill gets us back on track toward regular biennial Water Resources Development Act bills. The committee produced a so-called WRDA bill last year, but that bill was 1 year late. I am proud of the WRDA portion of this bill. This is not a bill that includes numerous unnecessary projects. The committee established some tough criteria on which we worked very closely. We evaluated the old criteria and put in new criteria. We scrupulously followed this criteria in an effort to not let projects make their way into this bill that did not belong there. As I noted in my opening statement a few days ago, the committee received requests to authorize more than 300 new projects. By holding firm on our criteria in this WRDA bill, we only authorized 23 new projects. We authorize 40 feasibility studies, and the bill contains 65 project-related provisions or modifications that affect existing projects. I remain very concerned about clearing the backlog of previously authorized projects that will not or should not be constructed. Along with Senator Voinovich, we are working very hard to clear that backlog. Called the deauthorization process, this will be an element of the committee's efforts to reform the Corps and to get those projects deauthorized that should not be there. This bill tightens that process by shortening the length of time that an authorized project can stay on the books without actual funding. It is not the full answer, but it is a good answer, and it is a good beginning. During floor consideration of the bill last week, we accepted an amendment that requires the National Academy of Sciences to perform two studies relating to independent peer review of the analyses performed by the Corps of Engineers. I would like to make a few points about that amendment because it was a very important amendment. We certainly have read a lot about Corps reform in the local newspapers, specifically the Washington Post, over the last few months. The stories raised very legitimate issues about the economic modeling used to justify some of these water resources projects. However, it is important to understand that a series of articles in a newspaper is no substitute for careful consideration of the facts and of the issues by the Congress. We have the oversight responsibility for the Army Corps, not the Washington Post. Some Senators, such as Senator Feingold, have proposed reforms that focus on one element in the Corps reform--whether or not to impose a requirement that the feasibility reports for certain water resources projects be subject to peer review. Others, such as Senator Daschle, introduced more comprehensive bills that would examine a number of the Corps reform issues, including peer review. The committee needs more information before we can proceed with any bill that would impose peer review on the lengthy project development process that is already in place. We need to know the benefits of peer review and its impacts before starting down that road. Senator Baucus and I are committed to examining this issue and other issues related to the operation and management of the Corps of Engineers next year. This will include hearings on Corps reform. The hearings will take comments on the NAS study--the National Academy of Sciences study--the bills that have been introduced, as well as the issue in general. I was very encouraged that the nominee to be the next Chief of Engineers, General Flowers, is receptive to working with the Congress on a wide range of reform-related issues. I want to speak specifically about one major element in this legislation, the Everglades. There is an important element that separates this WRDA bill from all others, something that makes this WRDA truly historic. This WRDA bill includes our landmark Everglades bill, S. 2797, the Restoring of the Everglades, an American Legacy Act, very carefully named because it is an American legacy. We do have to restore it. That is what we have done. We have begun the process. So many have asked--especially some of my conservative friends--why should the Federal Government, why should this Congress take on this long-term expensive effort? The answers really are not that difficult, if you look at them. First, the Everglades is in real trouble, deep trouble. We could lose what is left of the Everglades in this very generation. Secondly, the Federal Government, despite the best of intentions, is largely responsible for the damage that was done to the Everglades. The Congress told the Corps of Engineers to drain that swamp in 1948--and drain it they did, all too well. Finally, the lands owned or managed by the Federal Government--four national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges which comprise half of the remaining Everglades--will receive the benefits of the restoration. So there is a lot of Federal involvement here. This is a Federal responsibility. There is a compelling Federal interest. The State of Florida, to its credit, has already stepped up and committed $2 billion to the effort. And Congress needs to respond to that pledge. Let's be clear on one thing right now: This plan is not without risks. This comprehensive plan is based on the best science we have. Because of the very nature of the plan, and the additional requirements in the bill, we are certain we will know more about the Everglades and the success of the plan in the future. To those of you who want guarantees, who want to be absolutely certain every dime we spend is going to be spent in a way that is going to restore the Everglades, then I say to you you probably should not support us because I cannot make that guarantee. But what I can say to you is, if we do nothing we lose the Everglades. So if you want to restore this precious national treasure, then you have to be willing to take the risk. And we are cutting that risk dramatically by the way we are doing this. But we take risks all the time. We take risks every time we invest in a new weapons program for the Defense Department or when we invest in cancer research. I am sure there would be no Senator who would come to the floor and say: We have not yet found a cure for cancer; therefore, we should not risk any more money. We need to take this risk to save this precious ecosystem. It is well worth it. We have cut the odds. Because of the nature of this plan, and the additional requirements in our bill, we are certain we are going to know much more about the Everglades in the future; and we are going to be able, through the process of adaptive management, to change every year or so. If something is not going right, we can pull back, try something new, so we do not waste a lot of dollars doing things that we do not want to do. We acknowledge uncertainty. The plan acknowledges uncertainty. So when my colleagues come down and say there is some uncertainty about this, we know that. We anticipate that this plan will change as we gain more knowledge, while we implement it over the next 36 years. This is a 36-year plan that is going to spend in the vicinity of $8 billion, split equally between the State of Florida and the Federal Government. It works out to a can of Coke per U.S. citizen per year. That is not a bad investment to be able to save the wading birds and the alligators and this precious river of grass of which we are all so proud. I am confident, because of the time I have spent on this issue, that adaptive assessment or adaptive management--whatever you want to call it--will succeed, even if the plan is modified based on the new information that we get in the future. The Everglades portion of WRDA has broad bipartisan support. Every major constituency involved in the Everglades restoration supports this bill--every one of them. Is it perfect? Did everybody get exactly what they wanted? No. But everybody is on board. It is bipartisan and it is wide ranging. It goes from the liberal side of the equation to the conservative side. It includes the administration. It includes both Presidential candidates: Vice President Gore and Gov. George Bush. It includes the Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. It includes the Florida Legislature, both sides of the aisle unanimously. It includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida. It includes major industry groups, such as the Florida Citrus Mutual, Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Home Builders, The American Water Works Association, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Southeast Florida Utility Council, Gulf Citrus Growers Association, Florida Sugar Cane League, Florida Water Environmental Utility Council, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association; and environmental groups as well, including the National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, The Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, Audubon of Florida, 1000 Friends of Florida, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, and the Sierra Club. I think it is pretty unusual to bring a major environmental bill to the Senate floor with that breadth of support. Support for the bill, as it stands today, is even broader than the support that existed for the administration's comprehensive plan. We have taken a good product and have made it better. How have we made it better? It is more fiscally responsible. We defer decisions on some of the riskiest new technologies until we have more information from the pilot projects, which will help us to understand whether these projects should be continued. It has ground-breaking provisions to assure that the plan attains its restoration goals. It has the creation of a true partnership between the Federal Government and the State. This type of partnership--State concurrence in all important decisions and regulations--has no precedent in our environmental statutes. It has more detailed and meaningful reports to Congress on the progress of the plan, almost on a yearly basis. The Everglades bill is a great model for environmental policy development, a model I endorse, a model I have worked hard to implement since I have been the chairman. It is cooperative. It is not confrontational. It is bipartisan. It is flexible. It is adaptive. It establishes a partnership between the Federal Government and the State. Already, there is support for this bill in the House. Congressman Clay Shaw introduced this bill as H.R. 5121 on September 7. He deserves credit for his leadership in that regard. Many others in the House on both sides of the aisle are ready to join the effort. I am asking my colleagues to join with me in support of this major piece of legislation. I see my colleague and good friend from the State of Florida, Senator Graham, is on the floor at this time. I will yield the floor in just a moment so he may speak. Before doing so, I thank him, as well as Senator Mack, for his absolute and resolute involvement in this project. I went to Florida in early January at the request of Senator Graham and Senator Mack to see for myself what the situation was. I spent several days there. We had a hearing in Florida. We listened to the people who were speaking on this issue. I made a promise at that hearing that I would bring this bill to the Senate floor before the end of the year. With the help of good people such as Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Mack, Senator Baucus, and others, we have made that happen. I thank Senator Graham publicly and personally for that. His cooperation has been splendid. Without him, we would not be here. I yield the floor so my colleague from Florida may have a chance to address this issue that is so important to his State and to the Nation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the remainder of time to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.