Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement implementing the October 1999 announcement by President Clinton to review approximately 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct An Oversight Hearing on the reports of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the General Accounting Office on Risk Management and Tort Liability.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on National Science Foundation: Exploring the Endless Frontier during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 10:30 am and 2:00 pm to hold two hearings.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, to hear testimony on Disclosure of Political Activity of 527 and Other Organizations: Overview of Legislative Proposals.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that Chris Tyler, an intern in my office, be permitted privileges of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to both Senators from Texas.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on this side, I believe we have 17 minutes remaining.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have to conclude by 11:30. If Senator Lautenberg is prepared to take his time now, then we will pick up the remainder with the last speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an interesting debate. It has gone on now for a substantial amount of time. We talked about all of the details. Of course, that is a proper thing to do. There are all kinds of ideas in the Senate, which is the way it is supposed to be. That is what the Senate is about. There are many, particularly on that side of the aisle, who want to spend more--that more spending is the better thing to do. There are others who believe there should be a limit on spending--a limit on what the Federal Government does. But that is a judgment we need to make. Some apparently think that it is better to penalize spending, to make it more difficult for people to amass money. Others believe we ought to encourage savings. That is what the system is about. It causes people to be able to work and save for themselves. There are some who believe we ought to be in the business of redistributing income. Of course, we are dealing with that all of the time. Others believe we ought to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurship. These differences, philosophical and others, are as they should be. It is the role of the Senate to do that. It is also the obligation and role of the Senate to come to closure. The idea that we drag these things along is exasperating. We have 35 days left in this session to finish many things, including the very important appropriations bills. As we move toward the end, of course, we have an administration that is interested, as always, in shutting down the Government and blaming the Congress so they get all the appropriation things they choose. The House adopted this bill by a vote of 279-136, which is greater than a two-thirds majority. This estate repeal, this death tax repeal, over a 10-year period, does away with the death tax. It takes death out of the formula. It would not eliminate taxes. Those properties and values passed on to someone else will be a basis, and when and if those are disposed of, there will be a tax on them. It isn't a matter of not taxing them; it takes death out of the proposition. Interestingly enough, despite all the concerns about revenue impacts, the tax raises only 1 to 2 percent of overall Federal revenues. That is relatively small. As a matter of fact, the Joint Economic Committee indicated a probable loss of income taxes because of businesses that have to be shut down as a result of estate taxes, thus causing a deficit. This idea that we will eliminate taxes, that people don't pay taxes on the property, isn't true. They will be paid on the basis of whenever they are disposed of. There are a number of things that need to be dealt with. One is that the death tax kills jobs. No question about that. Many small businesses and farms have to sell their properties. Jobs are eliminated. Those people who lose their jobs are taxed at 100 percent. I happen to be from the West where we are interested in keeping open space. Agriculture does that. Many agriculturists will have to sell their lands when they have to pay this estate tax. It will be developed. It ruins that idea. Certainly double taxation is involved here, so there are some philosophical issues that we ought to take into account. Again, I will stay away from the details. We have had a great deal of talk about the details. Instead of talking about the fact that we have lots of money, there are a million things for which we can spend it. We have had more difficulty holding down the size of the Federal Government, and that is more important when we have a surplus than when we have a deficit because there are a million things for which we can spend it. We ought to talk about what is the legitimate role of the Federal Government; what is the role of State and local governments. Do we just involve ourselves in everything because there is money available? I don't think so. We have a constitutional government, a constitutional limitation. We ought to talk about that. We ought to talk about saving Social Security. We are doing that. We ought to talk about strengthening health care. We are doing that. We ought to pay down some of the debt. And then, frankly, we talk about taxes. Money ought to go back to the people who own it, who are paying in. Fairness ought to be a part of this whole equation. I hope it will be. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had 15 minutes. The Senator from Oklahoma used part of it. I intend to use the remainder. We are a little behind on time.

Mr. THOMAS. As I understand it, I agree: Senator Domenici, then Senator Harkin, and then we have Senator Hutchison.

Mr. THOMAS. I will use about 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I won't take a long time. My friends have covered many of the details. This issue is not about the pictures that were shown by the Senator from Illinois. It has nothing to do with overgrazing or not overgrazing. That is not the issue. I hate to see it be left that way because it really has nothing to do with that. It has to do with what happens until the BLM can get to that piece of land to make the study to decide what to do with the lease. It is pretty simple. Here is what it says: The terms and conditions contained in the expiring permit or lease shall continue in effect under the new permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of Interior completes the processing of such permit or lease in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which time such permit may be canceled, suspended or modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter the Secretary's statutory authority. I am sorry to say that doesn't fit much with what the Senator from Illinois described when he discussed this bill. I do think we need to briefly talk about what does it do. It allows the BLM to have more time to complete the necessary environmental reviews for renewing permits and leases. By providing BLM more time, they are less susceptible to litigation and therefore less costly to the taxpayer, and it is more likely that BLM will not rush to finish their job and do a complete job of their review when the time comes. The language provides a better method for stewardship of Federal lands by having the BLM and the rancher work hand in hand on it. It provides the means for the agency to utilize sound processes and procedures. That is what they claim they have not had time to do. This provides that. It subjects the permittee or lessee to potential modifications by the BLM of the terms and conditions, once the reviews are completed. It doesn't give them carte blanche. BLM is still able to revoke a permittee's grazing privileges at any time. They can do that. It provides more stability, consistency, and security to ranching families. That is very important to us. Fifty percent of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. Most of that is BLM land. It is multiple-use land; it was designed to be under the law. This is a renewable resource, and it is done that way. I know that doesn't mean much in Chicago, but it means an awful lot in Wyoming, out where the Federal lands are. We have to talk about that. The language eases the end-of-the-year backlog, of course, for BLM. What does the language not do? It does not lessen the responsibility of the rancher in abiding by the terms and conditions of the permit or lease. It does not limit BLM's authority to manage grazing on public lands. It does not exempt the permittee or the lessee from any environmental law. It does not grant a permit in perpetuity. It simply provides for 10 years, until it is changed by the BLM. It does not allow BLM to delay or ignore compliance of any environmental law or regulation, since BLM is mandated in those time lines to do those things. Why is this language necessary? Frankly, it is very disappointing that the Senator from Illinois is back the second year in a row to fight against western livestock ranchers. This issue--BLM not being able to complete the required environmental renewal process on expiring grazing permits--is not the permittee's fault. The backlog was created by the administration, by the BLM. For some reason or other, the Senator from Illinois prefers to penalize the ranchers rather than hold the agency accountable. Striking this section in the bill is really detrimental to management of these lands. The Senate language, which I agree with, states: The inability on the part of the Federal Government to accomplish permit renewal procedural requirements should not prevent or interrupt ongoing grazing activities on public land. When they get back to doing their job, it continues on. It is pretty simple. It has worked. It can work in the future. I think it is important we have the same language President Clinton signed into law last year. As a matter of fact, after being contacted by the cattlemen, he said: . . . the final 2000 budget does provide BLM with $2.5 million that will enable the agency to effectively conduct detailed reviews before renewing livestock grazing permits and leases to ensure environmental compliance. I am confident this funding will help us protect both the public lands and the livelihood of hardworking ranchers. That was from President Clinton's letter. That is where we are. What we need to do is vote against this amendment and allow the system to continue to work as we proved it can work last year. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Byrd for accepting the amendment, and also Senators Hatch, Grams, and Burns for cosponsoring this amendment. I think it is useful. I appreciate it very much.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess today from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 in order for the weekly party conferences to meet. I further ask unanimous consent that the time count against the postcloture debate time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to comment on the bill and some of the areas of particular concern. First, I recognize and thank the chairman and Senator Byrd for their good work. It is a tough job on any appropriations bill to hold down spending and keep it within the budget. Yet it is very difficult to set the priorities. This is one of the hardest jobs in the Congress. I appreciate the work they have done. Particularly in this Interior bill, it is very hard to put together a bill that gets support throughout the entire Congress, representing all the States in the country, when a large part of the activity goes on, of course, in the public land States. I want to comment on a few of those areas that are of particular concern to those who live in the West, where much of the State is owned by the Federal Government, ranging from 25 to nearly 90 percent of some States belonging to the Federal Government. Our economy, our future, all those things are tied very closely to what happens with the management of Federal lands. Much of that is within this budget of Interior. I am particularly pleased, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, that the funding for national parks is in this budget, as well. Certainly we would all like to see as much support as possible for parks, but there is an increase here, as there has been over the past several years. There are some 379 parks in this country, national parks, all of which are quite different--from Yellowstone to the Statue of Liberty--parks that are unique. The idea, of course, is to have the basic support for parks come from appropriations. We have developed over the past several years some alternative support, supplemental sources of funding that are not meant to replace, of course, but simply to supplement. These are such things as demonstration fees, which are then used in the park in which they are collected, or highway funds which come from the highways and go to the parks. I am thinking particularly in this case of Yellowstone Park, where highways are a very important part of their funding. Much of that goes there. We encourage contributions that can be made from the private sector. There are several areas of concern, of course. One of them is PILT-- payment in lieu of taxes. This is a program designed for a county where much of the land is owned by the Federal Government, where they would normally have real estate taxes that would come in through the operations of the county. Of course, when the Federal Government owns the land, those taxes are not collected and therefore this is a replacement and one that has been there for a very long time. It is quite important. It is very important because, in most cases, the counties provide the kinds of services on the public lands that they would provide on the private lands, even though the Federal Government, by its nature, does not pay the taxes. So these are payments that are made in lieu of. There are some increases in this budget over the last year, but not nearly equal to the taxes that would be collected if the Federal Government did not own the land. So to the extent that is some measurement of fairness, then we are still quite below where we ought to be in the PILT area. We raised the authorization a number of years ago. Now it is tied to some kind of growth in the economy. We are, of course, quite below what the authorized level would be. We have some increases. We would like to have some consideration given to them. Large amounts of land in Wyoming belong to the Federal Government--in the entire West. It creates some responsibility. Last week I met with county commissioners in Big Horn, WY, and their primary concern was what we are going to do with PILT because much of their county is Federal land. We have a unique relationship with the Federal Government. The Government depends on local communities to provide this infrastructure. Without the support of these counties, the Federal Government would be unable to manage theirs. I am talking about highways; I am talking about police protection; I am talking about health care and emergency care. All these things are provided without the basis of support that is usually there. So that is what the payment in lieu of taxes is all about. I know it is very difficult, but I think it is a program that merits some consideration and perhaps we will have the opportunity to increase those payments somewhat. Actually, it is not confined to Western States. About 49 different States participate in the PILT program throughout the country, including the District of Columbia and three territories, so, of course, it is widespread in support. Earlier this year, we had 57 Senators join in a letter supporting an increase in PILT funding. I will submit, a little later, for consideration some opportunity perhaps to give a little boost to that kind of funding. It is something that has a real meaning. Let me give a little example. We have 23 counties in my State of Wyoming. Teton County is 96 percent Federally owned, Park County, 82 percent federally owned, on down the line; in Big Horn County, which I mentioned a little while ago, 80 percent of that county belongs to the Federal Government. It goes on. So I think there is a great deal of interest in that, and in the question of fairness. Let me say, too, even though the appropriations are not actually the area where these kinds of decisions are often made, I think it is important to recognize this administration has made a drive towards the end. I understand the President is seeking to change the legacy to be one of a sort of Theodore Roosevelt thing, with land acquisition, the proposal to have 40 million acres roadless, in addition to the Antiquities Act and other things. This is going on currently. One of the difficulties is not so much the idea of controlling roads. I have no problem with that. There should not be roads everywhere; we need to take a look at them. I am more concerned about the method in which it has been undertaken. Rather than having a major decision made by bureaucrats in Washington, we ought to go through the process. We have what are called forest studies over several years, and we have forest planning. That is where it ought to be done, so the people locally can participate. We have talked about all the meetings we have had, and I have attended some of them, but the problem is, because this was done on a nationwide basis, hardly anyone who came to the meetings knew what they were talking about, including many of the people from the Forest Service. So there needs to be some real input. Perhaps there is something we can do to slow down that area. Going back to parks, there are some 27 or 28 parks where one of the access functions that people enjoy is using snow machines in the wintertime in places such as Teton Park and Yellowstone Park and in Minnesota--there are a number there. Now we have another one of these bureaucratic knee-jerk responses that we are going to eliminate the use of snowmobiles in national parks. I do not argue there ought not be some control. There should be, and there can be. There ought to be some control over the machines themselves. The manufacturers have said they are willing to do that, to lower the noise and do something about the emissions. The problem is the EPA has never set up any standards with which they need to comply. I understand if you are going to put a great deal of money into research to change these machines, you have to know where you need to be to be able to comply. We have never done this. In addition, even though it seems as if a lot of people are using them, there are many fewer using the facilities in the wintertime. So it would have been possible, if the park had managed the snow machines rather than just letting them go, to separate the uses if they conflict with one another. If you have snow machines conflicting with cross- country skiers, in most parts you can have some space in between them. The park is never managed. Instead of seeking to manage these kinds of things, they simply say: Now we are going to do away with them. The real issue there is access. Parks and public lands at least have two major functions. One is to preserve the resource. The second is to give the owners, who are the taxpayers, an opportunity to enjoy them. One of the ways of enjoying them is, in this case, a snow machine. Rather than simply eliminate it, it seems to me we ought to take a little bit more time and find some ways to fit that into what we are doing, whether it is used for hunting or hiking or sightseeing. We were talking about energy over here. One of the reasons we are having energy problems is that our domestic production is down. One of the reasons it is down is we have made it more difficult to have access in the public lands. In Wyoming, that is a real problem because half the land belongs to the Federal Government. So I think there are a lot of things we can do to be able to still protect the resource yet provide for multiple use of those resources. Finally, there is grazing. A year ago, the Senate bill had language in it that if the Bureau of Land Management, didn't have the resources to go in and investigate and take a look at a grazing allotment--if the BLM did not get there, as they were supposed to, then they could cancel the allotment of this grazing. All we are saying is, when the BLM can't get to it, until they are able to, they ought to be able to go on as they have before, under their original contract. That is language that should be there. We would like to make sure it is there as we go through this. Finally, there is a wild horse problem. We have a large number of wild horses in Wyoming. Not many people have to deal with that problem. The administration has requested $9 million for the next 4 years as part of an effort to bring the wild horses back to manageable levels. As a matter of fact, in the Red Desert of Wyoming, about 10 years ago, there was a lawsuit which required that these numbers be brought down. The BLM has never done that. Now they say: We can't do it unless we have some additional funding. The House funded the administration's request, but an amendment on the floor brought it down to $5 million. The Senate bill does not fund the administration's request. Now we have the possibility of BLM taking money away from other uses unless they have some more resources to handle these wild horses. I hope we can talk about some of these issues. I understand they are unique problems. I do not think there are many wild horses in Rhode Island, but they are in other places. This is the kind of bill where we have to deal with the unique things that happen in the West. Again, I appreciate very much the work of the chairman. I know he comes from a western State with a considerable amount of unique and public resources as well. I also know that he is very interested in dealing with them fairly. I compliment that effort. I want to work with him to see if we can deal with some of these other unique problems that arise. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2294, a bill to establish the Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historical Park in the State of California, and for other purposes; S. 2331, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to recalculate the franchise fee owned by Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., a concessioner providing service to Fort Sumter National Monument, South Carolina; S. 2598, a bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and for other purposes; and S. Con. Res. 106, a resolution recognizing the Hermann Monument and Herman Heights Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, as a national symbol of the contributions of Americans of German heritage. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 13, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969.