Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. If we come back to conference with an emergency designation, it will be subject to the President's approval. We would, in effect, be making a request to the President that it be declared an emergency. I do not think this has reached the emergency stage. The House has it without an emergency, and I think we can accommodate that position.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Let me assure the Senator from West Virginia that this is sort of a current emergency in terms of the allocation process under 302(b). We are working this out. The House has the $1.7 billion. We believe because of the reaction from the veterans community we ought to assure that this wasn't intentional all the time to meet the House level in the conference. But by the time this got to conference we believed we would have the 302(b) situation straightened out so we would know where the emergency decision should be made and whether there would be advance appropriations. This is a temporary emergency concept. We are asking the Senate to help us get this bill to conference with the emergency designation on the $600 million, and we assure the Senate that this will not be an emergency coming out for this item unless it is absolutely necessary, which I don't see right now. But we would like it in the bill in conference. When we made the 302(b) allocation to this bill by, in effect, borrowing money from the Health and Human Services bill, we thought it was best to try to have some negotiating stance with the House on some items in the bill. But we never intended to negotiate this item. I conveyed that to the managers of the bill this morning and asked that we take this issue out of contingency in the conference. But this is the best way to do it. I hope the Senate will agree with us. It is an emergency designation that is necessary under the circumstances, but it is not a permanent emergency designation.

Mr. STEVENS. If I may respond, Mr. President, I have to say the managers of the bill wanted the $1.7 billion to start with. Senator Byrd wanted $1.7 billion. As chairman I found it impossible to make that allocation at the time. But we are saying right now it was always our intention to accommodate the decision made by the managers of the bill that it should be $1.7 billion. This $600 million will meet that objective, and I hope the Senate will adopt it as we suggested.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. As a licensed private pilot in Alaska, I am well aware of the challenges every pilot in my state faces every day. On some per capita basis, there are more pilots in Alaska than in any other state in the union. For many of the residents in my state, air travel is the only mode of intrastate transportation. Alaska is one-fifth the size of the lower 48 with a population roughly the size of Montgomery County, Maryland. For many Alaskans, air travel is the only way to get there from here. We have some of the roughest terrain and weather on this continent. Very little flying in Alaska is done above 10,000 feet. Most flying is done in small, single and twin engine aircraft that have historically higher accident rates than high-flying multi-engine turbojets. On average, in the last decade, there has been one aviation accident every other day in Alaska. One hundred pilots, and 266 others have died in aircraft crashes in Alaska since 1991. Every nine days, on average, we lose another Alaskan to an aircraft accident. And these statistics do not take into account four helicopter accidents since June of this year. This and other data compiled by the National Transportation Safety Board and NIOSH show that for the first time in our history, aviation accidents have become the leading cause of occupation-related fatalities in Alaska. This is why I am asking the good Senator from Alabama to consider partial funding for a promising safety study that has been proposed by the Alaska Field Station of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health when his bill goes to conference. This study will bring together all the leaders in Alaska aviation. Industry, state and federal agencies and pilots themselves will all contribute to an intense examination of how to improve aviation safety in Alaska. The Federal Aviation Administration, the National Weather Service, and the National Transportation Safety Board are all enthusiastic supporters of the study. It is my hope that this study will foster common sense, industry-led safety initiatives--not promulgate increasingly burdensome federal restrictions and penalties.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senate Report on the FY2000 Department of Transportation bill allocates $8 million to the Coast Guard to pay for the costs of extending the Unalaska municipal pier to provide a dedicated berth for the agency's High Endurance cutters. The Coast Guard is currently forced to shift the High Endurance cutters when in port because the large vessels inadvertantly serve as obstacles to the commercial ship traffic, and the vessels' antennae have at times impeded commercial aviation service into Unalaska. I have since been informed that the Coast Guard may not have sufficient capability to manage a dock extension project in this remote region of the Aleutian Islands. Since the City of Unalaska owns the main pier, I have asked the City to take on the responsibility of managing the pier extension through its municipal competitive procurement process and to assume the responsibility of maintaining the dock extension in exchange for being able to use the space when the High Endurance Cutters are not present. Such an arrangement would dramatically reduce any outyear operating expenses for the Coast Guard associated with the pier space. This arrangement would require a transfer of funds from the Coast Guard to the City at some point next year. While I am not offering an amendment today, we may find that such a Local-Federal cooperative endeavor may need specific legislative language in the final FY 2000 appropriation bill. Am I correct in my understanding that this issue will be evaluated and technical language may, if necessary, be considered in conference?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Subcommittee Chairman would be willing to discuss with me an Alaskan Aviation Safety Study the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, called-- NIOSH, has proposed.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend from Alabama and remind him that I plan to ask the Subcommittee Chairmen of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Labor, HHS to also contribute funds to this study. For your committee's review and oversight, I have asked NIOSH to provide annual progress reports. improvements to provide access to the boyer chute national wildlife refuge

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1658

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I do.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Department of Energy has been investigating alternate fuels that would improve air emissions but not require a new infrastructure or delivery system such as would be required in the use of compressed natural gas. One possibility is Gas- to-Liquids or GTL. The GTL process takes natural gas and converts it to a liquid fuel that has the characteristics of diesel fuel, only without sulfur, which interferes with the catalysts that clean up emissions.

Mr. STEVENS. I say to my colleague from Alaska that I will work with him to try and find the funds needed for this project. It is a god project for the community and a worthwhile one for the government. I have been a Glacier Bay on numerous occasions and am supportive of increased visitor facilities. As I understand it no authorization is needed for this as the Secretary has existing authority under section 1307 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Mr. STEVENS. Perhaps my colleagues agree that we should try to work with the Department of Energy on organizing a more pronounced effort there to support research on cleaner diesel from natural gas.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I say to my friend, I have this map again to show to the Senate. Isn't it interesting that, however, the Senator's amendment affects 52 native villages in that one area, the Yukon Delta Refuge. The Senator says I can use the other four-fifths of the land of the United States. These people have no access at all. They are the lowest income people in the United States. The effect of the Senator's amendment would limit them, even under subsistence, to obtaining no more than $10,000. I don't know if he understands that, but Federal law already limits subsistence use when it is totally for subsistence, without a commercial protection, to $10,000, in terms of barter concepts. But these people can't go to these lands that are in yellow. Those are the other lands that are not affected. The lands affected are the lands in which they live. Congress, in 1980, gave them the right to continue their lifestyle in order that they might continue to live. They live on fish and game resources, and they sell both to obtain cash income, very limited amounts, on an individual basis. The total, altogether, is $7 million. But the total out there is something like 70,000 people. When you look at it, you are saying, oh, yes, you can use traps, just go to downtown Anchorage now and get one of those newfangled traps, the ones that the environmental people say are safe and humane, but you can't use the one that the scientific managers say are the most effective, not only to carry out the business of obtaining their food and their cash income, but to pursue our own objectives of limiting predators so we can protect other wildlife. I have a whole list of wildlife that have been protected by these people who are subsistence hunters, who catch or trap these animals and sell the furs, but they do protect the migratory birds that come into this vast area. The areas were not set aside to protect the animals being snared. They were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl. These are not wildlife refuges to protect the red fox, or anything else. They are for migratory waterfowl. You are telling them that they cannot use these traps. As our volunteer agents, by the way, they are doing the job that it would take a thousand paid officials to do. They are trapping the predators and selling their skins.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe there was an understanding that this vote would not start before 2 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that the vote start at 2 p.m. and the quorum call end automatically at that time.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I serve notice to the Senate that as the hour of 2 o'clock approaches, I will make a motion to table. I am informed that other Senators wish to make statements. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I heard this morning a brilliant statement by the Senator from Hawaii to our Alaska Federation of Natives forum being conducted now. One of the things he stated I want to repeat to the Senator from New Jersey: Subsistence is not about eating. The Senator's amendment presumes subsistence means going out and obtaining food. Subsistence is a way of life. Subsistence is the ability to hunt, fish, trade, or barter what they get for cash in order to live. It is more than just obtaining an animal. The Senator's amendment says one can continue to trap for subsistence and I believe he means for food. He says once they sell the pelt, they are into commercial activities. Our State fish and wildlife service recognizes that trapping for subsistence is a legitimate activity. As a matter of fact, the exception in the Federal law is for subsistence hunters. They can trap in pursuing their subsistence lifestyle. To think they could not then sell those animals, sell the pelts, or to put them in a position where they could only do so for wildlife management purposes--which is the effect of the Senator's amendment-- offends us. The people who rely on a subsistence lifestyle hunt, fish, and trap. They consume some of the fish, they consume the animals, and they sell or use the remainder of what they catch--both mammals and fish--for their native arts and crafts. They also carry out the purposes of wildlife management because they are, in fact, trapping the predators that would destroy the migratory waterfowl--the foxes that eat the eggs, the other predators that eat the birds. The area was set aside to protect the migratory waterfowl. The Senator is saying they cannot use traps on these wildlife refuges that were set aside to protect migratory waterfowl because these traps catch some birds. The predators they catch considerably outnumber the impact of the traps on migratory waterfowl. The Senator says they can do it if it is for wildlife management purposes. There is no agent setting traps because these people are setting traps. In effect, they carry out the purposes of the management scheme by trapping the way the managers tell them to trap. They are using the traps that have been approved by the Federal and State system. Along comes this amendment. It makes the judgment that two of those traps are inhumane and should not be used by these people. It doesn't ban the fish and wildlife managers from using them. It doesn't ban anyone from using them. It bans the 15 percent of the people who use these traps. I don't intend to support banning anyone from using them as long as the fish and wildlife managers say this is scientifically the best way to deal with both the predator control and the objective of obtaining resources for maintaining the subsistence lifestyle of these people. These 52 native villages, I think the Senator knows, can only be reached by air in the wintertime. For the most part they are on rivers. During the summertime, visitors can travel to the villages but during the winter trapping period, the only way to get to and from there is by air. Diesel costs $3 to $5 a gallon. And now the Senator would say they can't sell those pelts? They can still catch the animals and eat them but they can't sell them? Those people are out there trapping simply for plain trapping purposes. That is their cash income. They are from one of the larger villages, but they have a trapline. They have a permit. They are supervised by somebody. They get approval of where they will set the traps. They get approval of the type of traps they will use. That is what the wildlife management system brought to them. They live with that. They made up the code of ethics as required by the Federal managers; they live by that. Why should the Congress of the United States tell them they cannot carry out a lifestyle that the scientific manager says is the correct way to manage those resources? I think those who live in the East have the luxury of saying do something else. Go to the store and get another trap. That is not the case. Most of the traps are very old. They are maintained by our people. Many of them were made by them. The idea of saying they can continue trapping but go down to the store--there is not a Sears, Roebuck store nearby. You can't get the needed traps by mail order. If you use these new traps, you can continue trapping, but you can't use the ones you have been using. It is amazing; the Senator's amendment hits about 95 percent of the traps that are in use today on the wildlife refuges. Does the Senator know that? I say to my friend, I could not oppose this more, not only on the basis of being the Senator from Alaska but on the basis of scientific management. As much respect as I have for the Secretary of the Interior--I was assistant to the Secretary of the Interior and the solicitor general counsel to the Interior Department in the Eisenhower administration, but in my day we relied upon scientific managers and did not reverse them for political purposes. That, I think, is what the Senator is defending, which I oppose.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator want a permit every time they do it and have the managers say this is for management purposes only?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Torricelli amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of the Interior as a Secretary of the Interior. I don't accept him, however, as a wildlife manager. I have put in the Record a letter from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, a professional who has put over 30 years of his life into the management of wildlife refuges, and he stands by his position. The letter that I have read to you was written after the Secretary of the Interior made his statement as a political figure, and the wildlife managers stand by their position. They stand by their position that these traps are the best scientific way to manage wildlife on Federal refuges. I really believe the Senator misinterprets my position. I want to make sure we understand each other. I support the use of these traps for wildlife management purposes, and I support the use of them for those who want to trap for income. But I say to my friend, in terms of the two types of traps that he would ban, those are traps that have been specifically approved by the wildlife managers. They are now opposed on a political level; I admit that. But what does the Senate want to do in terms of wildlife refuges? Manage for political purposes, or manage the system as the scientifically trained managers tell us is the best way to manage them? We defend the fish and wildlife managers and the safe fish and game commissioners. I say to my good friend, I accept the fact that he is defending the political judgment of my good friend, the Secretary of the Interior. I disagree with that, and I hope the Senate does also.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has used the statistics for all trapping on Federal wildlife refuges in order to try to eliminate those who use them for income, those who use them to pursue a lifestyle. I say to my friend, does he think that is fair? The wildlife managers use these traps. The statistics the Senator has cover all the programs on all of the wildlife refuges mainly, 85 percent, conducted by managers. But the Senator presumes that the damage is done by the 15 percent. Does the Senator think it is fair to say: Let's stop these people from using these traps because they harm the animals that they trap? What about the 85 percent? They catch birds. They catch foxes that eat their legs off. They catch other animals other than the targeted species. But in terms of fairness, the Senator's amendment prohibits those who live by trapping. Trapping is a management tool. I defend the 85 percent. I don't oppose it. It is a management tool. I wonder if the Senator knows that trapping of species such as red fox and racoons has saved the Hawaiian coot and duck and goose. They have saved some of the indigenous species that live in these refuges from the predators they trap. The predators they trap have a value. Those skins are sold for cash. I just ask the Senator, in fairness now, why should we say those people who use traps for a living do all this damage? It is not fair, in my opinion.

Mr. STEVENS. I have placed in the Record the statement prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and a letter they sent to me on July 20. In there is a statement about which I want to ask the Senator, my good friend from New Jersey, a question. It says: As background, during the period 1992 to 1996, a total of 281 refuges conducted one or more trapping programs, a total of 487 programs. Eighty-five percent of the mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted for wildlife and facilities management reasons--85 percent. The remaining 15 percent occurred primarily to provide recreational, commercial, subsistence opportunities to the public, as portrayed by the following table. The Senator's amendment exempts all of the 85 percent. It affects only those who are not government, those who live on the land. I ask the Senator, what about the 85 percent of the trapping programs using the same traps that will continue to be conducted by Federal and State managers? They have the same effect as the Senator complains of concerning those that are private. Why should the Senator allow any trapping if he believes as he does? The Federal managers, State managers are not prohibited from conducting 85 percent of the trapping in the wildlife refuges. This only prohibits those of the people who live there, who reside there. Why would the Senator pick out those who earn money from trapping and say they cause more damage than the 85 percent of the trapping by Federal and State agencies?