[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2401

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on a motion to table 
amendment No. 2401 offered by the Senator from New Jersey.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wofford

                                NAYS--37

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Packwood
     Robb
     Roth
     Sasser
     Smith
     Specter
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2401) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. If I may have the attention of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to remove Mr. 
Dorgan's amendment from the list and also Mr. Kempthorne's amendment 
from the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have 59 amendments remaining on the list. 
It is our intention to try to finish this bill tonight. The managers on 
both sides would appreciate it very much if Senators who do not intend 
to call up an amendment will get in touch with us so we can remove 
their names from the list. We can then more adequately determine how 
many amendments really remain to be called up.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] has an 
amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2405

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the health, safety, 
   and welfare of the people of the Edwards Aquifer region of South 
 Central Texas depend on water from the Edwards Aquifer and that this 
                water supply should not be interrupted)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator from Texas 
that the pending question is the committee amendment on page 49, line 
12.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment seems to be drafted to 
this amendment.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] for herself, Mr. 
     Lott, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Burns, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2405.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 49, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . EDWARDS AQUIFER.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in order to avoid a water emergency in South Central 
     Texas, the withdrawal of water from the Edwards Aquifer 
     (designated as a sole source aquifer under title XIV of the 
     Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe 
     Drinking Water Act'') (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)) should not be 
     limited without appropriate consideration of the impacts on 
     municipal, agricultural, industrial, and domestic water 
     users;
       (2) section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1539(a)) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
     permit the taking of a threatened or endangered species 
     incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, which may include 
     the withdrawal of water from a sole source aquifer; and
       (3) the State of Texas is working, in cooperation with the 
     Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, to 
     implement the water management plan for the Edwards Aquifer 
     region enacted by the State in 1993.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior should take whatever 
     steps are necessary and allowable under law to minimize 
     adverse impacts on users of the Edwards Aquifer while 
     conserving threatened and endangered species, including 
     issuing a permit pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)); and
       (2) nothing in this section should relieve any person from 
     any State or local requirement for--
       (A) water conservation or the development of alternative 
     water resources; or
       (B) strategies necessary to reduce demand on the Edwards 
     Aquifer.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, not since the Alamo has the city of 
San Antonio and the surrounding countryside been besieged by so many 
attackers from a faraway government. A Federal court may soon impose 
limits on pumping from the sole-source aquifer of the city of San 
Antonio--our country's tenth largest city--which also affects farmers 
and ranchers outside of the city, and all through south central Texas, 
in order to enforce spring flow requirements set by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
  This past week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new 
wastewater discharge flow restrictions that would prevent San Antonio 
from using its water system when spring flows out of the aquifer do not 
meet the Fish and Wildlife requirements.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, of course.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Texas is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the water 
management situation at Edwards Aquifer in Texas. The amendment has 
been worked out with the Environment and Public Works Committee, which 
has jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act. There appears to be 
no objection to the amendment on this side, and I recommend its 
approval on this side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank you, Senator.
  Mr. President, if I could ask unanimous consent for about 3 minutes 
to just state for the record what the problem is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the gracious Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. President, the State of Texas regional solution to managing water 
resources, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, remains unable to begin 
operations to alleviate the crisis because the Department of Justice 
will not grant it pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act.
  This is a very difficult problem. The city, the 10th largest city in 
the United States, has a number of very important military bases, that 
must not be stopped or hampered in any way.
  Divine intervention, the last hope of Colonel Travis, has also 
failed. South central Texas had only\1/26\th of its usual summer 
rainfall this year. Instead of setting new standards of intrusion into 
local government's affairs, the Federal Government should be sending 
help. And that is what I am hoping that we will be able to do today.
  What we must do, through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, is say 
that this is a local and State problem. In fact, Governor Richards has 
sent a letter to Members of the Senate saying that she does want to be 
able to handle this at the State level. The mayor of San Antonio is 
asking for forbearance from the Federal Government, so that they can 
work with the State to alleviate this problem.
  So the time has come for us to step aside. The solution, Mr. 
President, is at the local level. That is why I ask my colleagues to 
send the message that we want the State and local Government to be able 
to handle this. We want the statutory requirements to be met to the 
fullest extent possible, but, Mr. President, it is also important that 
people, the economic benefits, and the welfare of all of San Antonio 
and the surrounding region be considered as part of this equation.
  I have worked for the last 2 weeks on this amendment and I could not 
have come to the floor today without the help of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the Senior Senator from West Virginia, and 
the ranking minority member of this subcommittee, Mr. Nickles. The 
chairman and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Chafee, have also worked with me 
to resolve this issue for the relief and benefit of the people of San 
Antonio and the farmers and ranchers of south Texas, and to maintain 
environmental standards as best we possibly can without forcing people 
to go without water.
  But this is a crisis in my State. Sometimes we may think that a 
crisis in our States does not get consideration, but in this instance 
the chairman and the ranking member did give us that opportunity. I 
appreciate it very much.
  This amendment says that the Senate wants this to be a State and 
local issue, that we certainly want the city of San Antonio and the 
farmers and ranchers of that area to have access to the water they 
need, and most important, that they need to have the time for them to 
work out a local solution. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  For the help of the two Senators of the Appropriations Committee and 
the two Senators of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the 
people of San Antonio and south Texas are very grateful.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate Senator 
Hutchison for her leadership in this amendment and also her willingness 
to work with us in trying to take care of a very serious problem in the 
city of San Antonio and south central Texas. There is no question that 
water is a very vital resource. And when the water supply was put in 
jeopardy because of an over-stringent application of or interpretation 
of law, she has called for some remedies, she called for some relief, 
which I might mention is already in the law.
  So I would encourage the Secretary of the Interior to listen to the 
elected officials and also to local officials, as Senator Hutchison has 
called for. We strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Texas.
  The amendment (No. 2405) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire of the 
distinguished Senator from Texas as to whether or not she intends to 
call up a second amendment which is listed under her name.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am working on something right now 
and I will be able to have an answer for you very shortly.


            Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 49, line 12

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the committee 
amendment on page 49, line 12.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I intend to make a motion to table the committee 
amendment concerning Ellis Island Bridge. I will be making that tabling 
motion at the convenience of the managers of the bill and the others 
who wish to speak on this issue.
  As I want to give every Member who is interested in this issue a 
chance to speak, I will speak on it and by that time I hope to have 
agreement from the distinguished managers of the bill as to when it 
would be convenient to make the tabling motion.
  Mr. President, I will be making a tabling motion in opposition to the 
committee amendment which would allow the Park Service to authorize 
construction of a bridge from New Jersey to Ellis Island National 
Landmark. The House bill contains language prohibiting the Park Service 
from studying and permitting this project.

  I am concerned about the committee's action to strike this language 
for two reasons. Park and local officials have expressed their concerns 
that a permanent bridge to Ellis Island would damage the historical 
nature of the island and that the construction of such a bridge would 
be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  The construction of a bridge from New Jersey to Ellis Island is not a 
new proposal. A temporary bridge was constructed in 1985 to aid in the 
delivery of construction materials and personnel to the island for 
rehabilitation work on the landmark. The intent was for the bridge to 
be removed after the improvements had been completed.
  In 1991, Congress directed the Park Service to conduct a study of 
options for improving visitor access to Ellis Island including the 
feasibility and costs of making permanent the existing temporary 
bridge. Specifically, the Park Service looked at four options: upgrade 
the existing bridge; build a new bridge; lower the fares for the 
visitor using the ferry; and no action.
  The Park Service recommended no action. The report pointed out that 
the bridge alternatives would result in significant adverse impacts to 
the island. The Park Service wrote:

       The permanent establishment of a bridge to the island 
     represents an adverse effect to the cultural resources of the 
     park, a National Register and World Heritage resource.

  Mr. President, according to the experts at the Park Service, Ellis 
Island has a unique place in the history of our Nation--one that we 
must pass on to future generations so that they can appreciate the 
diversity that created this country. The bridge would diminish that 
historical spirit of the island, where over 90 million Americans can 
trace their roots.
  In addition to the Park Service, many conservation groups and 
political leaders have spoken out against this project. Twenty three 
members of the congressional delegation from the State of New York 
wrote to the Park Service in opposition to the bridge. The list of 
opposition to this project also includes: the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation; the National Parks and Conservation Association; 
Preservation Action; the New York State Office of Parks; Recreation and 
Historic Preservation; the Preservation League of New York State; 
Preservation New Jersey; the Municipal Arts Society of New York City, 
and the New York Parks and Conservation Association.
  Mr. President, with the Park Service recommendation against this 
proposal and this impressive array of groups opposing it, you may ask 
why the House language is necessary. The issue of building this bridge 
should be over. Unfortunately, it is not.
  Notwithstanding the 1991 Park Service report objecting to the bridge, 
in September of that year, the fiscal year 1992 Transportation 
Appropriation Committee Report earmarked $15 million for the 
construction project. Because of Congress imposing this project on the 
Department, the Park Service was forced to conduct an EIS on the 
construction of the bridge--an environmental impact statement.
  I want to repeat that, Congress directed the Park Service to do a 
study on increasing visitor access to Ellis Island focusing on the 
construction of a permanent bridge. The Park Service spent considerable 
time and resources on the study. The study recommended not building a 
permanent bridge and, goes even further by saying that the temporary 
bridge should be removed once the rehabilitation work on the island is 
complete. What does Congress do? We fund the bridge anyway--to the tune 
of $15 million.
  Mr. President, this makes no sense. We have entrusted the Park 
Service to protect our Nation's historical treasures. Yet when they 
believe a project is inappropriate, we push their expert judgment aside 
and demand construction of an unwanted bridge anyway.
  I believe the other body acted properly when it restricted further 
funding of this project. In this instance, we should praise the House 
and follow their lead.
  The House language will ensure that the Park Service does not have to 
expend its limited resources further on a project which is so 
vehemently opposed. A full environmental impact statement on the 
construction of a bridge could cost as much as $2.6 million. Money 
which I am sure could be put to better use by the already overburdened 
Park Service.
  In addition to the cost of the EIS, there is also the $15 million 
already appropriated for the construction of the bridge. We should act 
to rescind this money in order to prevent further pressure from being 
applied on the Park Service to complete a project it does not want, and 
we do not need.
  As I said earlier, the House language enjoys wide support. I ask 
unanimous consent that letters of support from Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 
Preservation Action and the New York Parks and Conservation Association 
appear at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. I will not read all of the letters to the Senate, but 
they contain two cogent points these letters make I must share with my 
colleagues. Thomas Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government 
Waste wrote:

       Congress cannot afford to keep funding unnecessary and 
     irresponsible projects when America's fiscal future remains 
     in doubt.

  The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Preservation Action 
went even further when they wrote:

       The National Trust for Historic Preservation and 
     Preservation Action oppose a permanent bridge between the 
     mainland and Ellis Island. We believe that visitor access, 
     interpretation of the Ellis island experience, and 
     preservation of the historic and cultural resources can best 
     be provided by through transportation by boat.

  Mr. President, I understand the concerns about increasing visitor 
access to Ellis Island. I agree that we should make every effort to 
ensure that people can visit our Nation's historic treasures in an 
affordable manner. However, the construction of a bridge to Ellis 
Island is not the appropriate way to resolve this matter.
  The Park Service has already studied this issue and determined that a 
bridge would damage the historic nature of the island. The completion 
of such a project would not only damage the resources of the island, 
but would be a waste of taxpayers' money. We should reject the 
committee amendment.
  Mr. President, I also would like to quote from a letter that was sent 
by 23 members of the delegation from the State of New York and I ask 
this letter be made a part of the Record as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. McCAIN.

       This bridge would be an irresponsible use of taxpayers' 
     dollars. The $15 million for construction of the bridge, and 
     some estimates put the final cost closer to $25 million, 
     would be better spent on other restoration projects on the 
     Island or even used to reduce the deficit. As you know, more 
     than half of the Island's historic buildings continue to rot 
     behind barbed wire and weeds.
       Another worthy project that continues to languish is the 
     Island's Family History Center, a place where people could 
     learn about their family's arrival in America through 
     original ship manifests and photos. The Park Service is 
     valiantly attempting to address both of these critical issues 
     but lack of funding has hindered their efforts on both 
     fronts.

  Mr. President, I suggest the recommendations of the 23 members of the 
New York delegation be paid attention to as we address this issue.
  Finally, I do not expect to win this vote. I did not win the one on 
Pennsylvania Station, and I will lose many others in the future. But at 
some point we will stop doing these things because the American people 
are demanding it.
  I often remind my colleagues of the 26- to 28-percent approval rating 
that the Congress has because of doing things like this, which are not 
sought by the Park Service, nor sought by Government agencies, are 
opposed by the very organizations who are dedicated to the preservation 
of our Nation's history and historical preservation. Yet they seem to 
go on.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                       Council for


                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: On behalf of 600,000 members of the Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), we support your 
     amendment to the FY95 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 
     4602, to oppose a proposed ``footbridge'' to Ellis Island 
     from New Jersey.
       There is no indication that a bridge to the Island would 
     enhance or expand visitor access, because New York and New 
     Jersey already provide ferry service to the Island and Statue 
     of Liberty. Moreover, a footbridge violates the authenticity 
     of experience to Ellis Island visitors, who are provided the 
     same experience as the millions of immigrants who floated 
     past the Statue of Liberty when they first arrived in 
     America. Indeed, the National Park Service concluded in its 
     April 12, 1991 Ellis Island Access Report that a bridge would 
     damage the historic nature of the Island and that it should 
     not be constructed.
       The initial $15 million in construction costs is nothing 
     but a waste of taxpayer dollars. Some cost estimates have put 
     the final cost closer to $25 million, funds that could be 
     better spent by reducing the deficit or restoring some of the 
     Island's historic buildings, which are rotting behind barbed 
     wire and weeds. Congress cannot afford to keep funding 
     unnecessary and irresponsible projects when America's fiscal 
     future remains in doubt.
       Thank you for this cost-saving amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                National Trust for


                                        Historic Preservation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the Board of Trustees and 
     the more than 250,000 members of the National Trust for 
     Historic Preservation and the Board of Directors and members 
     of Preservation Action, we are writing to support your 
     efforts to stop funding for a proposed permanent bridge 
     between the mainland and Ellis Island. We urge that the 
     language in the House Bill, which provides that the National 
     Park Service cannot issue permits for the proposed bridge, be 
     retained in the legislation.
       The National Trust for Historic Preservation and 
     Preservation Action oppose a permanent bridge between the 
     mainland and Ellis Island. We believe that visitor access, 
     interpretation of the Ellis Island experience, and 
     preservation of the historic and cultural resources can best 
     be provided through transportation by boat.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Moe,
       President, National Trust for Historic Preservation.
     Nellie L. Longsworth,
       President, Preservation Action.
                                  ____

                                                          New York


                             Parks & Conservation Association,

                                        Albany, NY, July 25, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senator, Senator Russell Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: New York Parks and Conservation 
     Association is an affiliate of National Parks and 
     Conservation Association. Both organizations have long been 
     concerned about the impact of the bridge project on the 
     integrity of Ellis Island and understand that the method by 
     which this project was authorized in Congress precluded a 
     public discussion of its merits.
       We believe the amendment being offered by you to prohibit 
     the National Park Service from spending funds on permits for 
     this project sets forth a reasonable alternative. It provides 
     a twelve month moratorium which will slow this process down 
     to enable all interested parties to more fully participate in 
     a dialogue about this very complex issue with long term 
     implications for this national treasure.
       Please contact us if you would like any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard White-Smith,
                                               Executive Director.

                               Exhibit 2

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1994.
     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary, Department of the Interior,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We understand the National Park Service 
     is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in 
     connection with a proposed ``footbridge'' to Ellis Island 
     from New Jersey. Aside from urging you to ensure the Park 
     Service gives full consideration to the ``no build'' option 
     which is before them, we hope you will oppose this waste of 
     the taxpayer money and defacing of a national landmark.
       A bridge would violate the historic spirit of Ellis Island 
     and negatively alter the visitor experience to one of this 
     country's most emotionally-charged landmarks. Ellis Island 
     has always been approached by boat. Millions of immigrants 
     first touched American soil at the front of Ellis Island, 
     with the Great Hall before them, and did so straight from the 
     ship that brought them from the ``old country.'' They did not 
     walk to or from Ellis Island. The bridge, by contrast, would 
     bring visitors to the back of the Island, perhaps near the 
     incinerator--an inauspicious welcome to one of America's 
     greatest historic treasures.
       In addition, there is no indication that the bridge would 
     increase access to the Island, ostensibly the reason for the 
     bridge, because Ellis already has ferry service from both New 
     Jersey and New York. As many visitors to Ellis Island are 
     schoolchildren and the elderly, it seems very unlikely that 
     they would be making the mile long roundtrip walk over the 
     bridge, often battling high winds and bad weather. 
     Pedestrians to Ellis Island would still have to catch a ferry 
     to visit the Statue of Liberty, and that would require the 
     construction of new visitor-handling and ticketing facilities 
     so tourists could go from the Island to the Statue. 
     Furthermore, the proposed ``footbridge'' would be large 
     enough to transport a tour bus, which would inevitably put 
     pressure on the Park Service to construct parking facilities 
     and turnaround facilities on the Island.
       This bridge would be an irresponsible use of taxpayers' 
     dollars. The $15 million for construction of the bridge, and 
     some estimates put the final cost closer to $25 million, 
     would be better spent on other restoration projects on the 
     Island or even used to reduce the deficit. As you know, more 
     than half of the Island's historic buildings continue to rot 
     behind barbed wire and weeds. Another worthy project that 
     continues to languish is the Island's Family History 
     Center, a place where people could learn about their 
     family's arrival in America through original ship 
     manifests and photos. The Park Service is valiantly 
     attempting to address both of these critical issues but 
     lack of funding has hindered their efforts on both fronts.
       Anyone who has taken the ferry to Ellis Island knows that a 
     poignant part of the experience is found in its isolation. 
     After voyages that had taken weeks or months, hopeful 
     immigrants had to wait for immigration clearance, a doctor's 
     OK, and finally the ferry to take them to New York . . . all 
     while they looked across the water to America where they 
     hoped to start a new life. This experience will change 
     forever if we build a bridge to the Island. All Americans 
     will regret this tragic modernization of our shared history.
       Our national treasures will disappear unless we respect and 
     cherish them. We urge you to oppose this defacing of Ellis 
     Island and consider other alternatives to increasing access 
     to the Island from New Jersey.
           Sincerely,
         Charles E. Schumer, Hamilton Fish, Jr., Thomas J. Manton, 
           George J. Hochbrueckner, Jack Quinn, Charles B. Rangel, 
           Susan Molinari, Peter T. King, Jerrold Nadler, Rick 
           Lazio, Carolyn B. Maloney, Maurice Hinchey, E. Towns, 
           Major R. Owens, Nydia M. Velazquez, Nita Lowey, Eliot 
           L. Engel, Sherry Boehlert, John J. LaFalce, Gary L. 
           Ackerman, Jose E. Serrano, Daniel Moynihan, Al D'Amato.

  Mr. McCAIN. So, Mr. President, I ask the managers of the bill when 
they would prefer I propose a tabling motion so all who wish to speak 
on this issue would have the opportunity to do so?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on our side of the aisle the two Senators 
from New Jersey will speak in relation to the amendment. Other than 
those two Senators, I know of no other Senators.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. If 
there are no other speakers besides the two Senators from New Jersey, I 
will propose a motion tabling the amendment at that time, if it is 
agreeable to the managers.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. KERREY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is quite a surprise for me. I am 
sorry that the Senator from Arizona chose to leave the floor before we 
could respond to this request from, as they say in baseball, from out 
of left field, because what we are discussing is a very important 
historical monument.
  I have particular contact with this monument because embossed in the 
list of those who came through are my parents--my mother, father, four 
grandparents--who came into Ellis Island via boat, deep in the hold, 
days and days on the ocean. They came because they wanted to be in this 
country.
  Frankly, I am in a state of shock by this presentation, because 
suddenly this now becomes an issue discussed from the distant State of 
Arizona, in which the Park Service has a significant measure of 
responsibility. But, Mr. President, I do not know when in the process 
of our negotiations we decided to turn over decisions to the Park 
Service about which we in the U.S. Senate think differently.
  There is one reason why that bridge is going to be constructed--and 
that is so people can see the history of their ancestors who came in 
the early 20th century. Millions came responding to the call: ``Send me 
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.'' They came to Ellis 
Island, and we ought to be proud of it. We ought to say that every 
American should see it, every schoolchild ought to visit there. They 
ought to study the names and see what their descendants did to 
contribute to the well-being and the development of this country.
  Right now, an average family will have to spend $18 to take a ferry 
ride to Ellis Island. They have to stand in long lines where maybe they 
can buy some food on the line, because they are going to be there for 
long periods of time, instead of being able to park their car and walk 
across a footbridge.
  We are not talking about a giant toll bridge for automobiles. We are 
talking about a pedestrian bridge. We are talking about something that 
is aesthetically in keeping with the structures on Ellis Island which 
was built, incidentally, rehabilitated by the contributions of 
volunteers who felt that this sacred place ought to be visited by as 
many visitors--Americans or otherwise--who want to see it.
  We conceived of the idea of the bridge only after the temporary 
bridge was put in place so that it could be serviced by the trucks and 
equipment that had to get to Ellis Island.
  It appeared, for the first time, that there was an alternative to 
waiting for ferry service and spending $18 for a family, plus parking, 
plus the inconvenience of getting downtown. We say now, ``Sure, you are 
welcome to see this national historical place, but you may have to 
spend $25, $30, $40 parking downtown in the area around the Battery, 
around the financial district and then get on the ferry and wait until 
the ferry is ready to take you back,'' instead of saying, ``Let's make 
it just as convenient as we do the Grand Canyon, with places for 
parking, with places for visitors where we have access routes 
included.''
  So instead of doing that, suddenly now there is an emergence of 
concern about what we are spending on this bridge. I am concerned about 
it, too, Mr. President, but there are things on which we make decisions 
about spending money. I know, I am chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. We make decisions. We do not always 
like spending the money, but we like the results. We like the roads and 
we like the airports, we like the bridges, we like the Coast Guard--we 
like all those things because they are necessary to service the needs 
and to provide a quality of life for our citizens. And so this bridge 
was proposed.
  It mistakenly, in my view, was eliminated in the House. I had many 
discussions with the House Members who, after hearing the case, may 
have a different view of that action. I submit that if the Senator from 
Arizona will permit us, let the Senate bill stand as it is, and we will 
go to a conference. The Senate will have its position, and the House 
will have its position, and we will make a decision.
  Mr. President, we hear that this facility presents an adverse effect 
on the natural resources of the parks, that it diminishes the 
historical nature. But, Mr. President, nothing diminishes the 
historical nature of this park more than the costs for getting a family 
there to see it.
  As a matter of fact, the Park Service had another proposal, other 
than the decision that was made by the Senate and by the Congress. They 
proposed as an alternative a disguise. They have suggested maybe we 
ought to build a tunnel. I think the whole bridge is about 1,200 feet, 
a quarter of a mile or less. And the Park Service, in its brilliance, 
suggests that we ought to construct a tunnel.
  Does that tell you something about where their thinking is? They are 
a good arm of the Federal Government. We often disagree with branches 
of Government. But this is a proposal submitted by a thoughtful group 
of people who have negotiated long and hard. But Congress decided that 
we would try to put this bridge in place, to perhaps replace the one 
that is now being used to service Ellis Island.
  So, Mr. President, the mission of this amendment is, in my view, 
designed to restrict access in some way--I am sure that is not the 
intent, but that is the result--as opposed to making it available to 
people of modest income, who cannot afford the $25, $30, whatever it is 
they need, to get to Ellis Island. Those who cannot afford it are left 
out.
  We are not satisfied with that approach. We think that those who want 
to see the people who came to this country searching for refuge, for 
opportunity, for freedom from persecution, ought to be able to visit 
Ellis Island. It might give them a better idea about the different 
cultures, the different religions, the different people, the different 
parts of the world from where they came, and to see the names of those 
descendants who helped to build this country.
  There is a mission that, frankly, mystifies me. I would have thought 
that our friend and colleague from Arizona would have given us an 
opportunity to discuss this matter. One can offer amendments, one can 
make suggestions, but I always thought it was an ordinary process here 
that when amendments are considered that affect one person's State or 
one person's interests, that some discussion takes place before 
suddenly we are faced with an amendment on the floor.
  We are faced now with a decision about whether or not we are going to 
continue to have this national treasure available to all who want to 
see it at a time when it is harder and harder for families to make ends 
meet. Not to be able to reduce the cost for access to this great 
monument, to experience the roots of our society, I think, is unfair to 
lots of people.
  The Park Service has estimated that more than 7,000 people a day 
would use the pedestrian bridge.
  That translates to about 25 million Americans using the bridge to 
visit Ellis Island over the next decade.
  The objection is, Mr. President, that it would alter the historic 
landscape. As I heard the tales from my grandparents and my parents 
when they arrived, they did not see much of a landscape. They came out 
of the holds of ships, were huddled in masses, sent to this place and 
processed through by people who often could not pronounce their names 
and changed their names as they came into this country.
  But there was a moment when they set foot in America. That was the 
precious part of the trip. Mr. President, not to have that fully 
accessible is something that I just do not understand. We are going to 
fight hard to maintain this committee amendment. I hope that our 
colleagues will understand that this is an important opportunity to 
preserve access and availability of visits by Americans and others from 
all over who want to see this historical site.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak again on this 
issue, but I feel compelled to respond to the Senator from New Jersey 
who mentioned my name on several occasions.
  First, I would like to address the issue of what the Senator from 
Arizona is doing on this issue. I would like to quote from a New York 
Times editorial which says:

       Actually, the island belongs to the National Park Service, 
     and spiritually to tens of millions of Americans from coast 
     to coast whose kin streamed through the Great Hall in the 
     late 1800's and early 1900's. The Supreme Court will not 
     change that. But it would be a sad mistake to give New Jersey 
     the civic jurisdiction it seeks.

  This is part of an article arguing that Ellis Island is part of the 
State of New York. I do not intend to get into that discussion, but I 
believe that the New York Times is correct when they say that this 
island spiritually belongs to tens of millions of Americans from coast 
to coast whose kin streamed through the Great Hall in the late 1800's 
and early 1900's, including many citizens of my own State.
  Mr. President, I do not come before you claiming expertise on the 
issue. First of all, I remind the Senator from New Jersey this is not 
authorized. I am surprised that the Senator from New Jersey is 
surprised because the fact is I have consistently opposed unauthorized 
appropriations, and I have done it as strongly and ferociously as I 
can.
  Mr. President, as I say, I do not have a lot of knowledge about this 
issue, but I do believe the National Trust for Historic Preservation 
does. The National Trust for Historic Preservation says:

       The National Trust for Historic Preservation and 
     Preservation Action oppose a permanent bridge between the 
     mainland and Ellis Island. We believe that visitor access, 
     interpretation of the Ellis Island experience, and 
     preservation of the historic and cultural resources can best 
     be provided through transportation by boat.

  The New York Parks Conservation Association, which I am sure does 
have some knowledge of this issue, says:

       New York Parks and Conservation Association is an affiliate 
     of National Parks and Conservation Association.
       We believe the amendment being offered by you to prohibit 
     the National Park Service from expending funds on permits for 
     this project sets forth a reasonable alternative. It provides 
     a twelve month moratorium which will slow this process down 
     to enable all interested parties to more fully participate in 
     a dialogue about this very complex issue with long-term 
     implications for this national treasure.

  I agree with the Senator from New Jersey that we should not do 
everything that the National Park Service tells us. But I also think it 
is wrong to ignore studies that are conducted by the National Park 
Service. In this study, they said:

       The bridge alternatives would result in significant 
     impacts. The permanent establishment of a bridge to the 
     island represents an adverse effect to the cultural resources 
     of the park, a National Register and World Heritage resource. 
     Were Ellis Island located in Manhattan or Jersey City, it is 
     unlikely that this immigrant processing station would have 
     become such a resonant symbol of the American experience. 
     Reached and departed only by water, it became the Isle of 
     Hope/Isle of Tears, and occupies a singular place in our 
     history and consciousness. To alter Ellis Island's 
     relationship to the mainland with a bridge would drastically 
     alter its historic character, and change forever (change 
     forever) the experience of the park visitor.

  Finally, at the end of their executive summary they said:

       Alternative ``D'', the No Action Alternative, proposes to 
     remove the existing, temporary bridge at the conclusion of 
     its use as the construction access for the rehabilitation of 
     Ellis Island. Visitors will continue to pay the present 
     competitive fare for access by ferry from New York and New 
     Jersey, and the National Park Service would continue to 
     closely monitor the ferry rate structure to ensure that the 
     cost to the visitor is fair and competitive.

  I believe that the Senator from New Jersey mentioned the costs of 
such a trip for a family of four, I think he said $18 for a ferry trip. 
It costs $35 to get into Disney World per person. So I do not think 
that $18 for an entire family, at least in the view of some, is an 
outrageous sum. Perhaps it is.
  But the fact is the amendment is not authorized. It is not supported 
by the Park Service. It is opposed by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, opposed by 23 members of the delegation from the State of 
New York, and I think that at least this measure should be up for 
further study before we decide to devote $15 million--in the view of 
the delegation from New York, as much as $25 million--to an 
unauthorized project.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I think many of the things that the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona does are in the interest of the country. I think 
he is well-meaning in many of the things he proposes to do. But I rise 
in strong opposition to this effort to strike money for a bridge 
between the New Jersey shore and Ellis Island. I strongly stand with my 
colleague in his fight to maintain the money for this bridge.
  My colleague, Senator Lautenberg's, effort here is one that comes not 
only from his position on the Appropriations Committee but because, as 
he said in his moving speech, of his own family's history of finding 
the names of his own family members on the walls of the building at 
Ellis Island, and therefore his determination to make sure that 
Americans have access to this historic monument.
  Mr. President, the National Park Service preserves natural wonders in 
this country, such as the Grand Canyon, for all Americans to have 
access because of their natural beauty and wonder. The Park Service 
also preserves monuments of human creativity and human achievement such 
as Ellis Island. The Park Service has a dual mission to protect and 
make accessible areas of natural interest and areas of human interest. 
Ellis Island falls into the category of human interest.
  Millions of Americans feel a strong attachment, as my distinguished 
colleague has said with his own family, because their families have 
fled tyranny, repression, and come through Ellis Island with the hope 
that a new day has begun. Ellis Island should be open to the maximum 
number of Americans. It should not be restricted by income. It should 
not be reserved for only those who can afford to visit this national 
monument.
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona mentioned that it was opposed 
by 23 members of the New York delegation. That is not surprising. I 
mean, the New York delegation claims that they control access. They 
derive all the parking revenues. My distinguished colleague can correct 
me if I am wrong, but I have not heard anybody from the New York 
delegation proposing that a bridge be built from the New York side all 
the way to Ellis Island. For anyone who knows the geography, the reason 
is quite clear. It is a long way from the New York side to Ellis 
Island, while it is 1,300 feet from the New Jersey side to Ellis 
Island. So I am not surprised by that objection. But let us look at 
this issue of making this national resource accessible to people.
  Under the amendment that is in the bill, the bridge would be 
constructed for about $7.5 million; 25 million people would visit in a 
year. Last year, 4.5 million people visited. Why is it that so few 
people visited this renovated Ellis Island? Might it relate to the 
cost? Indeed, I think it does. If you want to go to Ellis Island to 
show your children their ancestors' names on the wall, what you do is 
you drive into Manhattan. You pay a toll to get into Manhattan if you 
are coming from Kansas or if you are coming from New Jersey; you pay a 
significant toll. Then you drive through the crowded streets of 
Manhattan down to the lower end of Manhattan, where you park your car 
in an expensive parking lot. And you pay as much as $20 to park. You 
pay $3 or $4 to get through the tolls, and about $20 to park. You have 
a family with a lot of children. You do not want to discourage those 
children. You do not want to leave two or three of the kids in lower 
Manhattan. You want to take your whole family to see Ellis Island, and 
hope that the names of your ancestors are on the wall of Ellis Island. 
You are a family with five children.
  So you are now going to pay $6 per person to get on the boat to go to 
Ellis Island. That is $42 for the family for the boat ride. Then there 
is $20 for parking. There is $4 for the tolls. Pretty soon, if you are 
going to buy any food, it is another $10 or $l5, and you are up to 
about $80 or $90 in order to visit Ellis Island.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey is proposing, instead of 
doing that, to make it accessible to anybody who can drive into Liberty 
State Park on the New Jersey side, park, and walk 1,300 feet across a 
bridge to Ellis Island? It makes eminent sense to me. It seems not to 
make sense to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona says the reason he is opposed 
to this is it is not authorized. Well, Mr. President, I looked through 
the Interior appropriations bill. I looked through again, remembering 
there are monuments of natural interest, monuments of human interest, 
and monuments of national interest. The Grand Canyon, no one can 
dispute, is one of the Seven Wonders of the World. But as I look 
through the money being spent on the Grand Canyon, I find $3 million 
for visitors center rehabilitation. It was not asked for by the Park 
Service; it was not asked for. The administration did not request it. 
It is not in the House bill.
  So, Mr. President, I am curious why something that was not requested 
by the administration when it comes to the Grand Canyon is OK, but 
something that is not requested by the administration when it applies 
to New Jersey is not OK.
  I find that to be slightly out of whack, but I have a suggestion. I 
have a suggestion as to how we could solve all of this. That is to look 
at this great natural resource in Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and there 
we see that, in order to obtain admittance to the Grand Canyon, it 
costs $10 per car to get access to see this great natural wonder. We 
have already tabulated that for a family of five to get access to Ellis 
Island, it costs over $80.
  What if we just said that access to the Grand Canyon should be on a 
per person basis, not the $4 per person that exists now, but say $6 per 
person? Well, Mr. President, if we simply said it costs $6 per person 
to visit this great natural resource, the Grand Canyon, that would 
raise about $13 to $14 million more for the U.S. Government, which is 
precisely the amount that this bridge would cost.
  So I say to my friend from Arizona that I am with him on cutting 
spending. But there are important resources that are both natural and 
human that we need to preserve access to. I do not know whether he 
wants to deal with the issue of raising the fee for access to the Grand 
Canyon or not. I guess we could do it on this bill if we wanted to so 
propose.
  But I hope that, at a minimum, we will reject the attempt to strike 
this bridge, with 25 million people having access to this enormous 
resource that covers the pageant of America's journey to this country 
from all over the world. And it should be available to as many 
Americans as possible, not for only those who can afford to pay for the 
toll, for the parking, for the boat ride, and for a small snack once on 
Ellis Island.
  A few years ago, I made a big fight to knock out the $1 fee for the 
Statue of Liberty. I did that because I did not think that the great 
lady standing in the harbor saying, ``Give me your tired and huddled 
masses'' should have a price tag on it. I kind of feel the same way 
about Ellis Island. But there is a fee there.
  Let us at least treat it fairly and make access available to the 
maximum number of Americans. That is what a bridge from the New Jersey 
side extending 1,300 feet would do; provide that access.
  So I strongly back the efforts of my colleague from New Jersey, and I 
salute him for his desire to open up this national monument to the 
maximum number of Americans.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from New Jersey 
concerning the Grand Canyon, first of all, I did not support the 
section of the committee report concerning the rehabilitation of the 
Grand Canyon Visitors Center. I did not propose it.
  If the Senator from New Jersey would want to strike that provision in 
the bill, I would vote in favor of that. Second, I am sorry the Senator 
from New Jersey is not aware that we have attempted to raise the fees 
into the Grand Canyon in the form of a proposal that we think is very 
important, and in the future it may apply to Ellis Island. That is, in 
return for a $2 increase in the entrance fee to the Grand Canyon, 
private individuals and companies and corporations throughout America 
would match those funds, and we would basically double the amount of 
revenue we receive. We would hope that the Senator from New Jersey, who 
has taken an interest the Grand Canyon, would support its passage. We 
think it is a unique proposal and one that deserves serious 
consideration. So that is my response to the comments of the Senator 
from New Jersey about the Grand Canyon. I appreciate his interest in 
the Grand Canyon.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am sorry that we are taking the 
Senate's time now to debate this issue, which has a national 
implication but is very much regionalized in the New York-New Jersey 
area. My distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Bradley, outlined 
some of the things we should not be concerned about. We ought not to be 
concerned about 23 Members of the New York delegation who want to take 
jurisdiction, more than just access, from the National Park Service 
which owns this property.
  But, Mr. President, if we wanted to duplicate the immigrant 
experience, I suggest that we do something like the following: Put 
guards or rangers on the island who do not speak English, who cannot 
communicate in the tongue of those who are coming to visit; that when 
they arrive, they ought to be chilled to the bone sitting in the wet 
hold of a ship for a while; let them spend a few hours out there in the 
harbor. We will not send them out to sea--just rock them back and forth 
until they maybe get seasick and hit the land. Then on the land, they 
ought to get somebody with a button hook that you use for your shoes to 
pull down eyelids to see if the people had pink eye or other diseases, 
or look at the shapes of their hands to see whether or not they are 
going to send them back to the point of embarkation from where they 
came.
  We ought not to be able to provide them with casual snacks or things 
of that nature, as we do now. In those days, people came practically 
stripped of possessions, reduced to fear and anxiety, because they were 
going to this strange place that attracted them, and they knew they 
could not speak the language and could not communicate with those who 
were going to receive them.
  Mr. President, in order to duplicate that immigrant experience, there 
would have to be a terrible tragedy in this country of ours. We would 
have to reduce our facilities to accept and welcome people to bare 
bones.
  Mr. President, we are discussing for a moment the treasure known as 
the Grand Canyon. Perhaps we ought to reduce that to its earlier status 
and not have bus traffic, automobile traffic, lodges, restaurants, 
facilities, helicopter flights through the Grand Canyon. Maybe we 
should not have white water trips, but return the Grand Canyon to its 
natural state so that people understand what it was like to see the 
Grand Canyon in its early days, and have the full natural experience. 
Bring your tent, your blanket, your mess kit and your canteen, and go 
into the Grand Canyon.
  Mr. President, we are not going to duplicate the original experience 
at Ellis Island and go back to the early 1900's, when my grandmother 
carried my mother in her arms, who was a year old, and frightened to 
death because they did not know what they were getting into; but they 
knew what they wanted to leave. Or my father's family. My grandmother 
brought my father and his two brothers. Not one spoke a word of 
English. They went on to college--not my father, but his brothers--and 
to make a contribution to this country of ours. That is what it was 
about. We ought to let people get there who want to see it, who want to 
feel it, who want to understand what it was like and not have to pay 
for a ferry ride so you can hear the music, get the hot dogs and maybe 
a beer on the way. That is not the way Ellis Island was introduced to 
people. You cannot duplicate the experience, but we can provide access.
  Mr. President, I hope that this attempt to delete the committee 
amendment on the bridge fails. Thank you very much.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
want to make a very important point here. The Senator from New Jersey 
alleges that the Grand Canyon funding is in the bill. I point out to 
the Senator from New Jersey that it is in the committee report. In the 
bill is the language regarding appropriations for Ellis Island. The 
Senator from New Jersey well knows the dramatic and significant 
difference between report language and bill language. The courts have 
ruled time after time that report language is not binding. In fact, as 
I have read through the list in the report which includes funding for 
Harper's Ferry National Historic Park, WV; Edison National Historic 
Site in New Jersey, and all these others, I do not like them, because 
they are earmarked. But they are not binding in law. What is binding in 
law, I say to the Senator from New Jersey, is the bill language which 
the courts would uphold as necessary.
  Also, in my remarks I did not pretend to, nor do claim to know about 
Ellis Island. I left that to the Senators from New Jersey and the 
Senators from New York and the 23 Members of the New York congressional 
delegation, who oppose the Senate's actions to strike this bill 
language which would in effect require the expenditure of this $15 
million. Since the senior Senator from New Jersey brought it up, we 
have done a lot in the Grand Canyon, and I do not expect the Senator to 
know about it. But I expect him to be informed before he comments on 
it.
  There is a bill I had passed in 1987 concerning air tours over the 
Grand Canyon that says restore natural quiet--a bill that, thanks to 
the help of the Senator from New Jersey, stops the flows through the 
Grand Canyon dam, the dramatic shifts and flows--do I have it reversed 
as to who is senior and junior here? I will do it by name. Senator 
Bradley was very helpful in getting the legislation through which 
stopped the fluctuating flows through the Grand Canyon, destroying the 
riparian areas, archeological sites, the fish spawning areas. We passed 
that into law, and it has now been enforced. We stopped that 
degradation, and we stopped construction on the north rim of the Grand 
Canyon of a new facility that was proposed to be built. We are now 
talking about a reservation system to visit the Grand Canyon.
  So I also say to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] for his 
edification, that we do have Native Americans living in the Grand 
Canyon. I encourage him to visit them. They are called the Havasupai 
Tribe, and they have been there several hundred years. We have done a 
lot to restore the Grand Canyon to its original state. But the fact is 
that there is a difference between what is in a report of a bill and 
what is in actual bill language. We know that the courts have ruled on 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Arizona will shortly move to 
table the amendment. I believe there has been a good discussion over 
here. I will vote against the motion to table.
  Inasmuch as we have had that discussion and we have several other 
amendments on the list, it is my hope that we could move on quickly. I 
would simply suggest that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the manager of the bill would just 
permit me 1 minute to make sure the Record reflects there is no money 
in this bill. That money was appropriated in fiscal year 1992. The 
committee amendment simply confirms that funds can be expended and that 
right now there is nothing in our bill that prohibits the use of those 
funds.
  What I believe the distinguished Senator from Arizona wants to do is 
to remove that language so the expenditure of those funds is 
prohibited.
  I have nothing more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with the----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I apologize.
  Mr. BYRD. No. I yield to the distinguished Senator.
  I would like to retain the right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia retains the 
right for the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield 1 minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  The Senator from New Jersey is correct. I stand corrected.
  The fact is by striking the language which says ``None of the funds 
available to the National Park Service in this act may be used to 
process permits necessary for construction of a bridge at Ellis 
Island,'' and then allows by law the expenditure of the funds, I still 
maintain that is very different from report language which does not 
have the force of actual law.
  But I think we have probably discussed this issue enough, and I would 
say to my colleagues unless they have further comments I will ask the 
Senator from West Virginia when he is prepared for my tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I may say to the distinguished Senator I 
will only take a minute.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that from the list 
one amendment under the name of Mr. Wellstone be deleted and I ask 
unanimous consent that two amendments under the name of Mr. Robb be 
stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe everyone has been heard on this. I 
hope we can move forward quickly. As I say, I will vote against the 
motion to table. I hope other Senators will do so.
  I also trust that during the vote we might be able to ascertain what 
Senators, who have names on the list, really intend to call up 
amendments and those who do not.
  So, Mr. President,

       If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
       It were done quickly. . . .

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I make the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table.
  Mr. McCain. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on the motion to table 
the excepted committee amendment on page 49, lines 12 through 14 of the 
bill. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boren
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the committee amendment on page 49, 
lines 12 through 14, was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if we may have order? I think the Senator 
from Illinois will offer the amendment, and then I will speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the first 
excepted committee amendment.
  The Senator from West Virginia, the manager of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Senator from Illinois or the 
Republican leader been recognized? If not, I seek the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Republican leader has been 
recognized but in the Chair's opinion has yielded the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to get a vote on the pending 
committee amendment first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the pending 
committee amendment?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
committee amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
  Will Senators please take their conversations from the Chamber. The 
Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are several amendments still on the 
list. I have a feeling that most of those amendments are only place 
holders. I would like to see if we can get some understanding as to 
what Senators really intend to call up those amendments. We have been 
on the floor a long time today:

     . . . careful hours with time's deformed hand
     Have written strange defeatures in my face. . . .

  I would like to get on with this bill. I understand that the 
Republican leader and the distinguished Senator from Illinois have an 
amendment they want to call up. We could do that in 2 or 3 minutes, if 
it is agreeable.
  Mr. DOLE. Two or three minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Then I believe Mr. Wallop has an amendment. We could 
probably dispose of that within 3 or 4 minutes?
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, it will not take long to dispose of it, 
but I will require slightly longer than that for the remarks I wish to 
make.
  Mr. BYRD. Are there any other Senators that have amendments they 
intend to call up?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is my belief on this side of the aisle 
we do not have that many more amendments. I know Senator Murkowski is 
still working on an amendment.
  Senator Nunn and Senator Coverdell are working on an amendment. 
Senator Domenici has an amendment, and once we finish Senator Wallop's 
amendment, I think we are pretty close to being finished on this side.
  Mr. BYRD. Would it be a fair proposition to ask unanimous consent 
that of those Senators who have names on the list, if they do not 
report to the desk by 4:30 p.m. today that they really intend to call 
up their amendments, that all remaining amendments will be stricken 
from the list?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. Reserving the right to object. Will the distinguished 
chairman accept an alternative? I share the view with the managers of 
wanting to complete this bill. Will the Senator give us until, say, 
4:30 to check with all Members on this side? We will personally contact 
them by telephone, and maybe somebody can do it on the other side, and 
we will report back by 4:30; would that be agreeable?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is a fine proposal. Understand, this does not 
mean we are opening up----
  Mr. DOLE. I understand.
  Mr. BYRD. We are not opening up the list for additional amendments. 
We want to get the amendments off the list. That is fine.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2406

(Purpose: To provide funds for a grant program to restore and preserve 
  historic buildings at historically black colleges and universities)

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek unanimous consent to set 
the pending amendment aside?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself, 
     Mr. Dole, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Mack, 
     Mr. Mathews, Mr. Pell, Mr. Robb, Mr. Roth and Mr. Simon, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2406.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 16, line 23, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$42,000,000''.
       On page 16, line 26, following ``1996'' and before the 
     period, insert the following: ``: Provided, That $2,000,000 
     shall be for a grant program to restore and preserve historic 
     buildings at historically black colleges and universities: 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be made 
     available until authorized''.
       Beginning on page 41, line 18, strike all starting with the 
     semicolon through ``99-658'' on page 41, line 24.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, at the outset, I want to thank the 
Senator from West Virginia for his gracious acceptance in allowing 
Senator Dole and me to move forward with this amendment. This amendment 
really is the Dole/Moseley-Braun or the Moseley-Braun/Dole amendment, 
and I have been delighted at the support and assistance of the minority 
leader in working through the issues that this amendment covers.
  Specifically, this amendment will provide funding for the 
historically black colleges and universities as requested in the 
President's budget. Frankly, the Nation's historically black colleges 
and universities have provided academic excellence for over 130 years.
  As so eloquently stated in Fisk University's original charter, 
historically black colleges and universities have measured themselves 
``by the highest standards, not of Negro education, but of American 
education at its best.''
  Throughout their history, historically black colleges and 
universities have produced some of our Nation's most distinguished 
leaders, including the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., several 
current U.S Representatives and, of course, our colleague, Senator 
Harris Wofford.
  Yet, these institutions have distinguished themselves in the field of 
higher education over the years by maintaining the highest academic 
standards while increasing educational opportunities for economically 
and socially disadvantaged Americans, including tens of thousands of 
African-Americans.
  Although they represent only 3 percent of all U.S. institutions of 
higher learning, historically black colleges and universities graduate 
fully 33 percent of all African-Americans with bachelor's degrees and 
43 percent of all African-Americans who go on to earn their Ph.D.'s.
  Nonetheless, in order to meet the educational needs of these 
promising individuals, these schools have had to keep their tuition and 
fees well below those of comparable universities.
  In 1990-1991, the average tuition and fees charged by private 
historically black colleges and universities was $4,657--less than half 
the $9,351 average charged by private colleges nationwide.
  Moreover, historically black colleges and universities have also had 
to keep their costs low in order to increase financial aid for their 
students, who are disproportionately more dependent on financial aid 
than students at other U.S. colleges.
  A study conducted by the United Negro College Fund found that 90 
percent of students at private historically black colleges and 
universities require financial aid compared with 65 percent of private 
college students nationally.
  The study also found that nearly one-half of these students come from 
families earning under $25,000 a year.
  Mr. President, given that historically black colleges and 
universities have found it increasingly difficult to support student 
aid, it should not be surprising that they are unable to restore and 
preserve the historic landmarks which sit on their campuses.
  The Dole/Moseley-Braun amendment allocates $2 million, the same 
amount requested by President Clinton, for the Department of Interior's 
historically black colleges and universities historic preservation 
initiative.
  In 1992, the Department of the Interior, along with the National Park 
Service and the American Gas Association, began a campaign to identify 
the most significant and physically threatened historic landmarks at 
historically black colleges and universities.
  After a comprehensive review, the Interior Department selected 11 
architecturally and culturally significant historic landmarks for its 
historic preservation initiative. These historic landmarks include: 
Gaines Hall at Morris Brown College, which is associated with many 
persons of national significance, including W.E.B. Du Bois; Leonard 
Hall at Shaw University, which was the first 4-year medical school in 
the Nation; and Walter B. Hill Hall at Savannah State College, which 
served as a library for blacks when they were denied access to public 
libraries.
  Mr. President, the United Negro College Fund has agreed to match 
these Federal funds in order to protect these historic landmarks that 
symbolize the hope of the civil rights struggle and the contributions 
that historically black colleges and universities have made in the 
education of our Nation's citizens.
  I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues to 
support the Dole/Moseley-Braun amendment and by reminding them when 
Thurgood Marshall was refused admittance to the University of Maryland 
Law School because of the color of his skin, he received his education 
at a historically black university and that, of course, has made all 
the difference in the history of our Nation.
  I would like to now yield the floor to my colleague, the minority 
leader, the Senator from Kansas, who has been so gracious in working 
through this issue and who has a real concern in this area.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I thank the managers, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking 
Republican, Senator Nickles, for their consideration of this amendment. 
I also thank Carol Moseley-Braun, the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. President, recently I was criticized in the Washington Post for 
``delaying a black college bill.'' Well, I am happy to report that 
Senator Moseley-Braun and I are in agreement on the historically black 
colleges preservation bill and that this bill should be moving through 
the Senate very soon. I very much appreciate the efforts of the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois to resolve this matter. She 
understands that trying to help a small, impoverished college in my own 
State restore a historic building does not mean I am anti-historically 
black colleges. To the contrary, I am well aware of the special 
challenges historically black colleges face and I certainly appreciate 
what is being done here today. I have for many years contributed a 
portion of my speaking fees to the United Negro College Fund.
  The State of Kansas does not have a historically black college 
because the University of Kansas and other schools in my State have for 
many years provided educational opportunities to students of all races. 
The educational options for African-Americans in the South and border 
States before 1964 were much more limited. In many cases, historically 
black colleges were the only option available to African-American 
students who were interested in pursuing higher education.
  As the Senator from Illinois pointed out, if it was not for the 
opportunities provided by historically black college--astronaut Ronald 
McNair, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Secretary Hazel O'Leary, U.N. 
Ambassador Andrew Young, opera singer Leontyne Price--would have never 
reached their fullest potential. No wonder historically black colleges 
hold such a special place of pride and affection in the African-
American community.
  Despite the past and present achievements of historically black 
colleges, many of these schools have continued to struggle financially. 
One of the saddest results of the hardships faced by historically black 
schools is that they have been unable to preserve and maintain historic 
buildings on their campuses. These buildings represented the hopes and 
dreams of some of our country's best and brightest African-Americans. 
Their deterioration is nothing less than a crisis for our Nation.
  In 1991, as response to this critical situation, Secretary of the 
Interior Manuel Lujan selected 11 buildings on black college and 
university campuses for restoration. Secretary Lujan pledged $10 
million for the project from the Department of the Interior's historic 
preservation fund to be matched by funds from the United Negro College 
Fund. The funds for the initiative were never obligated because it was 
determined that a separate authorization was needed.
  Now that Congress is close to passing a bill to authorize the 
historically black colleges preservation fund, I am joining with 
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun to ask the Senate to provide $2 million 
toward the effort started by the Bush administration. It is my 
understanding that this funding would go to restore Gaines Hall, the 
oldest building in the Atlanta University complex, and St. Agnes Hall 
at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, N.C. St. Augustine college is 
one of the earliest historically black colleges.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in supporting this 
initiative to restore historic buildings on the campuses of 
historically black colleges. As Congresswoman Corrine Brown has 
testified,

       These historic buildings have been too important to the 
     higher education of African-Americans to lose--not just for 
     the role they have played in the past, but for valuable 
     lessons they can teach future generations of African-American 
     students.

  I thank my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment proposed by Senators Dole and 
Moseley-Braun, and others, restores the funding proposed in the 
President's budget for an initiative for building rehabilitation on 
historically black colleges and universities. The amendment also makes 
these funds subject to authorization. The amendment is offset fully by 
funds no longer necessary for the Palau Compact because implementation 
has been delayed.
  I not only have no objection to the amendment, I support the 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from Kansas. We have no objection to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2406) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senators should stand when they address the 
Chair.
  I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2407

 (Purpose: To require a study of units of the National Park System and 
          National Wildlife Refuge System for deauthorization)

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wyoming seek unanimous 
consent to set the pending committee amendments aside so that he may 
offer this amendment?
  Mr. WALLOP. The Senator does. I did not realize the parliamentary 
situation. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2407.

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On Page 17, line 20 insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That not to exceed $200,000 shall be 
     used for a joint study with the Fish and Wildlife Service of 
     which not to exceed $100,000 shall be used to undertake a 
     comprehensive review of the relative importance of each unit 
     of the National Park System to the overall mission of the 
     National Park Service, including, but not limited to, 
     consideration of land acquisition, annual operation and 
     maintenance expenses, personnel requirements, alternatives to 
     retention of such unit that may be available at the State of 
     local level (including within the private sector) and prepare 
     and submit to the Committees on Appropriations and Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources of the 
     United States House of Representatives by December 31, 1995 a 
     report that shall include a list of not fewer than five units 
     to be deauthorized with whatever recommendations the 
     Secretary deems appropriate for the disposal of any lands or 
     interests in lands within such units, and of which $100,000 
     shall be used to undertake a comprehensive review of the 
     relative importance of each unit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System to the overall objectives of the System, 
     including, but not limited to, consideration of land 
     acquisition, annual operation and maintenance expenses, 
     personnel requirements, alternatives to retention of such 
     unit that may be available at the State or local level 
     (including within the private sector) and prepare and submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations, Environment and Public 
     Works, and Energy and Natural Resources of the United States 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations, Merchant Marine 
     and Fisheries, and Natural Resources of the United States 
     House of Representatives by December 31, 1995 a report that 
     shall include a list of not fewer than five units to be 
     deleted from the System with whatever recommendations the 
     Secretary deems appropriate for the disposal of any lands or 
     interest in lands within such units''.

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I will try to abbreviate my remarks at 
the request of the managers of the bill. I believe they will find this 
amendment acceptable.
  Madam President, I happen to be from the State with the first 
national park and happen to have an abiding passion for the national 
parks of America. Those who may have heard me speak to the issue during 
the consideration of the California desert bill and the establishment 
of yet another park will understand that what we have been doing in 
this Congress for the last several decades, and in particular the last 
decade, is to add numerous new parks and no new resources for the Park 
Service to deal with them and no new personnel. In fact, if you look, 
personnel will be reduced by some 1,300 over the next 5 years.
  My amendment would direct the Secretary to study the 367 units of the 
National Park System and the 730 units of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System and report to the appropriate committees the identification of 
not fewer than 5 areas in each system which should be deauthorized or 
deleted.
  I ask my colleagues to consider that of all of the Federal agencies, 
there are two that administer programs that are loved by both the 
public and by Members of Congress. The programs that I am referring to 
are the parks and refuges administered by the Department of the 
Interior through the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
  While most citizens and legislators welcome a park or a refuge in 
their district, few have considered what has happened to the overall 
Federal pattern of ownership in these areas. The Department of the 
Interior, whose appropriations we are considering today, is facing a 
huge shortfall in funding to take care of existing obligations.
  This Congress, like every Congress before it, will continue to 
authorize new park and refuge areas, and the administration will 
continue to establish refuges administratively. Let us take a moment to 
look at the National Park Service, Madam President.
  Over the years, the mission of the National Park Service has evolved 
in many directions. Beginning with Yellowstone National Park in 1872, 
parks were established almost exclusively for their natural values. 
Then in 1933, the first historical park was added to the Park System. 
In the 1960's the first recreation areas were added. In the 1970's came 
urban park areas and cultural parks.
  In recent years, the National Park Service mission has expanded to 
include efforts which are most appropriately described as urban 
renewal, economic development, and local open space preservation 
projects.
  The National Park Service was not created for the purposes of 
managing urban renewal projects. There are other Federal agencies that 
would be and, in fact are, better administrators of those programs.
  However, Congress continues to place the Park Service in the position 
of overseeing every conceivable type of project that pops into the head 
of some Senator or Congressman seeking re-election.
  In the last 6 years alone, Congress has established over 30 new units 
of the park system. Because there exists no comprehensive vision for 
the agency, these areas have been added on a piecemeal, case-by-case 
basis. This does not include hundreds of park boundary expansion 
proposals that have been authorized, nor does it include the additional 
National Trails and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems units that 
have been added.
  In this Congress alone the committee has already recommended to the 
full Senate 10 new park areas, 9 expansion areas, and we will consider 
a whole host of other new parks and expanded parks prior to sine die.
  Throughout this Nation, there are billions of dollars worth of 
private land that have been taken into Federal control through acts of 
Congress that have created new national parks or expanded existing 
units of the system.
  How many acres are so affected? No one knows. That it is worth 
billions is not debated.
  So far, the National Park Service has refused to comply with the law 
which required the Secretary of the Interior to provide Congress with a 
list of these properties in priority order.
  What they have provided is a partial list giving out-of-date property 
values that shows that there are at least 364,000 acres worth $1.2 
billion.
  We have been using this figure for the past four administrations. At 
the very least the figures need to be brought up to date.
  But the Senate should know that this is the same National Park 
Service that estimated the Redwoods National Park would only cost $320 
million. In fact, the final cost was $1.4 billion.
  I hope everyone remembers the last battle of Manassas. Surely, we 
were told, the few acres would not cost more than $13 million. Madam 
President, $130 million later the Federal Government is the proud owner 
of the property at Manassas.
  Madam President, this situation would be bad enough as it is, but it 
is made worse by the Secretary of the Interior's attitude toward 
reimbursing the owners of private property who happen to find 
themselves within the boundaries of a national park because Congress 
and the administration thought it was a good idea. Secretary Babbitt 
has made it clear that he does not care one whit about these citizens 
and their property.
  When Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt testified on the 
California desert bill before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee on April 27, 1993, he made a statement that makes his 
position very clear.
  When referring to land trades for the Catellus Corp. which owns 
several hundred thousand acres of land in the desert, he said:

       One way to do trades on a predictably equal value basis is 
     to look at the rest of the BLM base outside of these areas 
     and say to Catellus: We would like to block you up; the lands 
     are roughly of equal value, and if you do not want to do it 
     we would be happy to let these inholdings just sit in this 
     area as inholdings forever.

  That, Madam President, is exactly what we are doing to several 
thousand other landowners throughout this Nation whose property has 
become part of National Park Service units. We are allowing the 
Secretary of the Interior to ``* * * let these inholdings just sit * * 
* as inholdings forever'' unless they cave in to Federal pressure.
  I for one do not wish to treat our fellow citizens so shabbily. If we 
decide that we have to take their land for the greater good, we should 
promptly reimburse them for the land we have taken.
  Many of these new areas have been extremely costly to date, they have 
added significantly to the already huge backlog in funding facing the 
agency. And all of these areas take away from existing parks.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a 
State-by-State list of the National Park Service shortfall in annual 
operations, construction, and land acquisition program budgets.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      STATE BY STATE NPS SHORTFALL                      
                             [In thousands]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Construction/
              State                Number of    Annual         land     
                                   NPS areas  operations    acquisition 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................          5       4,757          53,024
Alaska...........................         15       6,659         165,352
American Samoa...................          1         753               0
Arizona..........................         20      12,627         391,615
Arkansas.........................          5       1,861          46,619
California.......................         20      31,840         936,427
Colorado.........................         11       4,102         100,156
Connecticut......................          2         250          25,481
District of Columbia.............          8      12,082         358,426
Florida..........................         11       7,807         126,618
Georgia..........................         11       2,538         108,786
Guam.............................          1         971           8,140
Hawaii...........................          7       5,476          51,120
Idaho............................          5       5,998         366,129
Illinois.........................          2       1,252           5,870
Indiana..........................          3       2,824          13,012
Iowa.............................          2         306           3,900
Kansas...........................          3         201          10,956
Kentucky.........................          4       2,952           8,101
Louisiana........................          2         875           6,284
Maine............................          3       1,257          94,869
Maryland.........................         15      10,860         337,646
Massachusetts....................         11       3,821         133,924
Michigan.........................          4       1,090          25,056
Minnesota........................          6       2,286          18,067
Mississippi......................          4       6,158          58,097
Missouri.........................          6       2,973          36,106
Montana..........................          7       8,412         391,684
Nebraska.........................          4         334           2,929
Nevada...........................          3       8,529         254,696
New Hampshire....................          2          44          20,340
New Jersey.......................          7      11,549         480,800
New Mexico.......................         13       2,000          87,517
New York.........................         23      13,764         456,052
North Carolina...................         10      15,198         116,367
North Dakota.....................          3         536          11,823
Ohio.............................          5         751          64,998
Oklahoma.........................          1         388          19,700
Oregon...........................          4       1,640         134,165
Pennsylvania.....................         15      11,566         397,188
Puerto Rico......................          1       1,158               0
Rhode Island.....................          1          99               0
South Carolina...................          6         646           1,186
South Dakota.....................          4       1,089          27,030
Tennessee........................         11      11,051         155,390
Texas............................         13       2,993         141,163
Utah.............................         11       9,553          78,606
Vermont..........................          2           0          12,655
Virginia.........................         18      22,294         514,549
Virgin Islands...................          4       1,103          64,180
Washington.......................         11       4,923         184,379
West Virginia....................          6       3,089         295,975
Wisconsin........................          3       1,121           4,422
Wyoming..........................          7      10,099         425,673
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, between 1970 and 1992, 90 units and over 
50 million acres have been added to the National System. Quite a few of 
these 50 million acres do not qualify as National Park Service quality. 
In the process we have been destroying the integrity of one of 
America's great traditions--our national parks.
  New park legislation over the last 5 years has reduced the 
effectiveness of every dollar in the Park Service's budget to the point 
where the system is ready for the ambulance to take it to the emergency 
room. If we continue to authorize the way we have been, we can skip the 
emergency room and go directly to the morgue. We already have units, 
and portions of units that have been effectively closed to the public 
because the Park Service does not have the personnel or funds to keep 
them open.
  According to information supplied to Congress by the National Park 
Service, the agency currently faces a 37-year backlog in construction 
funding, a 25-year backlog for land acquisition, and a shortfall of 
over $400 million for existing park operation and maintenance. As the 
National Park Service faces a cut of 1,300 positions in the next 5 
years, the expansion of the Park System becomes an even more critical 
issue.
  Systemwide, the Park Service has been deferring maintenance for so 
long that now entire road, sewage, and water systems in many of our 
parks need to be entirely replaced. Continued maintenance deferral only 
adds to the increase of project costs.
  The Government Accounting Office has adequately documented the state 
of the park employee housing in more than one report. In short, we have 
become slum landlords.
  Turning to the Vail agenda, the report of the Park Service to its 
management, we find that the steering committee reported that the 
greatest strength of the Park Service was its employees.
  The report states that the typical employee is there because they are 
challenged by the opportunity to preserve and protect some of the 
Nation's most meaningful and enriching natural resources. This is 
despite a pay scale that is commonly one or two steps below that of 
employees with comparable responsibility and experience in other 
agencies.
  This is also despite employee housing which is commonly not up to 
code, run down, or nonexistent. We simply cannot do any better by the 
Service's employees, the Service's single greatest asset, if we 
continue to dilute every appropriated dollar by constantly authorizing 
new and marginally qualified units to the System.
  Prior to this summer, we all had the opportunity to read newspaper 
reports and editorials and to view television programs which explained 
that visitors centers in our parks would be opening later and closing 
earlier. Certain campgrounds, trails, and other facilities would be 
closed to park visitors. Interpretive programs would be curtailed and 
several vital and needed maintenance projects would be deferred to save 
money.
  Madam President, what about the National Wildlife Refuge System? I am 
talking about the 499 refuges, 180 waterfowl production areas, and 51 
coordination areas when I refer to the System. I am not talking here 
about the fish hatcheries or other properties under the jurisdiction of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Congress has just as great an appetite for refuges as it has for 
parks. For example, look what has happened at the Archie Carr National 
Wildlife Refuge. When the refuge was designated 4 years ago, Congress 
announced it would spend $9 million to acquire more than 9 miles of 
undeveloped beach and more than 800 acres within the boundaries. Since 
then Congress has spent $6.9 million. The race for the best remaining 
parcels is being lost to land speculators. At risk is a sea turtle 
nesting beach of global importance.
  So far, the State and two coastal counties have earmarked or spent 
more money, and acquired more land, than the Federal Government for the 
Federal refuge.
  Two private groups, the Nature Conservancy and the Mellon Foundation, 
also have contributed property. Still, only about 30 percent of the 
refuge is now in public hands.
  For fiscal year 1994, Congress initially planned to give nothing from 
its $82.7 million national refuge budget to buy land for the Archie 
Carr National Wildlife Refuge. After strong lobbying Congress provided 
a $1.39 million appropriation.
  For 1995, we have even less money to spread among 37 different 
national wildlife refuge projects, $62.3 million. Still, the Clinton 
administration asked that the turtle refuge receive one of the largest 
appropriations, $7 million.
  We are currently considering only $3 million. A refuge in Texas and 
one in San Francisco are supposed to get the largest allotments, $5 
million each.
  Simply put, the Department of the Interior is out of money for land 
acquisition in the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. There is no new source of revenue to pay for the cost of 
managing, maintaining, or developing what Congress has created in its 
last five sessions.
  We know we have recently created units of the National Park System 
that are not meritorious, nor nationally significant; they only drain 
scarce personnel and fiscal resources away from other areas. In fact, 
recently, we have had a Park Service official testify before our 
committee that there are park units that should be eliminated from the 
system.
  The same appears to be true of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service's Final EIS on the refuge system, Refuges 
2000, is a litany of attempts to put fewer and fewer dollars to more 
and more places--all without benefit of an overall master plan.
  The point I want to make here is that these two Department of 
Interior agencies have great needs for land acquisition, but have 
almost no chance of meeting those needs.
  It is time to cull these two systems of excess units that represent a 
budget burden while no longer meeting their original purpose. I am 
suggesting that we begin with only five units of each system. It is 
only a start but a worthwhile endeavor. It is something that needs to 
be done.
  Congress would still be required to make the final determination as 
to whether a park or refuge unit established by an act of Congress 
should be deauthorized or terminated.
  I realize this will be a hard choice for the Congress and the 
administration but the choice must be made. It is our duty to 
occasionally review what we have done in Congress.
  The studies called for by this amendment would help us achieve better 
oversight of the park and refuge systems.
  If we have park or refuge units that do not merit national status it 
is only good business to remove them to a more appropriate 
jurisdiction.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that 
appeared in this morning's Washington Times which says that visitors 
are down in the National Park System by something like 2 percent for 
the simple reason that they are visiting the degraded and substandard 
facilities that are overcrowded, unhealthy, and unworthy of a system 
that has been to date the envy of the world.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, July 26, 1994]

             Attendance at National Parks Seen Falling Off

       Arches National Park, UT.--Is America's love affair with 
     its overcrowded national parks falling?
       For the first time since the end of World War II, the 
     number of people visiting national parks is heading down in a 
     decline that started two years ago.
       And that spells trouble for businesses that cater to park 
     visitors.
       Even in this desert park of 2,000 natural stone arches, 
     where visitor numbers had jumped 51 percent since 1990, 
     attendance may be down this year, says Park Superintendent 
     Noel Poe.
       ``We didn't believe it could continue forever. Maybe we're 
     at that point,'' Mr. Poe said.
       Neighboring Canyonlands, where growth had been even higher 
     than Arches, also is in a decline.
       But not every park is down.
       Attendance at some parks that draw from major population 
     centers is climbing, including Yosemite, up 9 percent, and 
     Rocky Mountains near Denver, up 17 percent for the first five 
     months of this year.
       But nationally, visits to the park system's 332 reporting 
     units, ranging from parks to battlefields, were down 2.2 
     percent through May, and initial reports for June and July 
     suggest further drops.
       Last year, visits totaled 273.1 million, down from the 
     previous year's 274.7 million. In 1947, the number was 25.5 
     million.
       Many reasons are given why park system numbers are down, 
     ranging from am uncertain world economy to the international 
     attraction of all the World Cup soccer matches to 
     overcrowding of the parks themselves.
       ``People are tired of going to overcrowded parks,''said 
     Rod Greenough of Salt Lake City office of the National 
     Parks and Conservation Association.
       However, some businesses believe measures imposed to 
     control crowds, such as reservation systems, have also 
     discouraged visitors.
       ``It appears that in preparing for the overcrowding of past 
     years, the park service may have actually done its job a 
     little too well,'' said Brenda Tormo, president of the Grand 
     Canyon Chamber of Commerce.
       Suzanne Cook, an economist with the U.S. Travel Data Center 
     in Washington, said domestic travel business data would 
     suggest park visits should be up.
       ``The indicators that I have, like lodging data, are up 4.2 
     percent this year,'' she said.
       Ms. Cook said the parks' decline also may be a sign of the 
     changing tastes of baby boomers.
       But don't expect this slight attendance decline to 
     eliminate long waits for parking places and camping spots.
       If it's a reprieve, it's not much of one, said Mr. 
     Greenough and officials at several parks.
       ``I'd compare it to a prisoner of war getting a glass of 
     water thrown in his face,'' said Ken Hornbeck, who assembles 
     and analyzes visit numbers for the park service.
       And it doesn't mean outdoor recreation is down on all the 
     nation's public land.
       Recration consumers just have more choices, including 
     travel to millions of acres of less-crowded public lands 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest 
     Service. Neither agency keeps close tabs on visitor numbers.

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I hope that I am correct in 
understanding the committee's attitude toward this. Not every single 
piece of property that the Park Service holds, and every single piece 
of property that the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service holds is 
important to Fish and Wildlife or to the Park System. But one thing is 
certain. If we do not begin to find the means by which we restore 
integrity to these great services, the great blessing that Americans 
think will be their inheritance will be damaged beyond repair. This is 
just a tiny start.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am prepared to accept the amendment on 
this side. I hope that the Senate will agree to it.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I am informed that Senator Nickles asked 
that for the moment I manage the floor in his behalf. With leader's 
acceptance of that, I am prepared as well to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Wyoming.
  The amendment (No. 2407) was agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, just last month Bob Armstrong, Assistant 
Secretary for Land and Minerals at the Department of the Interior, 
testified before the House Natural Resources Committee on the general 
health of the domestic petroleum industry.
  In his testimony, Mr. Armstrong cited numerous reasons why U.S. 
companies are spending more than half of their exploration dollars 
overseas, not the least of which are the collapse of oil prices and 
various regulatory barriers. Yet he failed to mention perhaps the most 
significant reason: The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium provisions 
that are included in the Interior appropriations bill year after year.
  These moratoriums cover areas where there is the highest undiscovered 
resource potential for oil and gas. Domestic crude oil production is at 
its lowest level in more than 30 years, and imports are on the rise. 
Yet, once again we have foreclosed the opportunity to reverse these 
trends by adding these moratoriums on the OCS development. Why? Because 
the administration claims these areas need further study. Madam 
President, there is an old saying. ``The way to do nothing is to have a 
study.''
  They want to make sure that any drilling is done in an 
environmentally sound manner. The problem with their approach is that 
it is nothing more than an extravagant political gesture which destroys 
honest dialog about real dangers, and real problems. And real prospects 
fall short. The administration claims on the one hand to have a 
domestic natural gas policy. They want to increase production of 
natural gas. But, Madam President, there can be no natural gas or oil 
if there is no drilling.
  So while the Interior Department studies the abundant resources of 
the areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the attempt to shape the 
policy to produce energy there, it has become clear to me that their 
effort amounts to nothing more than political posturing for the benefit 
of an environmental constituency.
  Clearly, less rhetoric is the key to reducing our reliance on 
imported energy. We have the technological prowess to develop oil and 
gas resources in an environmentally responsible manner. There are far 
fewer accidents in the ocean, which are caused by the drilling and 
production of oil and gas, than are caused by transportation into this 
country.
  Great progress is being made in better determining the location of 
offshore energy resources through the use of 3-D seismic invasion. But 
these innovative techniques will sit idle or be used to develop the 
wealth and resources of the rest of the world unless we lift the 
moratorium and get on with the business of the exploration and 
development on the OCS. America's energy industry is a valuable asset 
to America's economy. Fifty billion dollars, half of our overseas 
balance of payments deficits, went just solely to the purchase of 
petroleum.
  So we cannot expect to maintain a strong and viable country, let 
alone the strength and viability of national interest, through a policy 
which encourages consumption at home and production abroad.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this is a request that is joined in by my 
colleague on the other side, Mr. Nickles.
  I ask unanimous consent that, of the three amendments listed under 
Mr. Brown, two amendments be eliminated from the list; that the four on 
the list under Mr. Dole's name be deleted; that the amendment listed 
under the name of Mr. DeConcini be eliminated; provided, further, that 
the amendment by Mr. Graham of Florida be stricken from the list; that 
the amendment by Mr. Hatfield be stricken from the list, that the 
remaining amendment by Senator Hutchison be stricken from the 
list; that two of the three remaining amendments by Mr. McCain be 
stricken from the list; that the amendment by Mr. McConnell be 
stricken; that the three amendments listed under Mr. Metzenbaum's name 
be stricken from the list; that the three remaining amendments under 
Mr. Wallop's name be stricken from the list; that one of the two 
amendments by Mr. Wellstone be deleted.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Nickles, and 
his staff and I thank my staff and the other staff persons and the 
Senators for their cooperation in helping us to reduce the list. I hope 
that other Senators who may be within hearing distance, or who may be 
watching the proceedings, will get in touch with us and see if we can 
eliminate their names as well, so we can move on to third reading and 
final passage.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
committee amendments on page 81, line 7; page 81, line 16; page 81, 
line 18; and page 82, lines 3 through 6, be agreed to, and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the excepted committee amendments at page 81, line 7; page 81, 
line 16; page 81, line 18; and page 82, lines 3 through 6, were agreed 
to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. In looking at our side, we just have a few amendments 
left. Senator Brown and Senator Burns wanted to keep an amendment. I am 
not sure whether they will require votes. Senator Coverdell and Senator 
Nunn were working on language dealing with the disaster and, hopefully, 
that will be coming soon. Senator Danforth has an amendment dealing 
with endangered species. I am not sure if that is a colloquy or 
amendment. Senator Domenici is working on an amendment, and I have 
requested that he come to the floor soon. It deals with southwestern 
fishery. Senator Murkowski has two, one of which is a sense-of-the-
Senate, which I hope we will agree to. The other I am not sure; it may 
require a vote. And Senator Gramm wanted to keep two spots. I am not 
sure what they pertain to. We are narrowing the list fairly quickly.
  I urge any colleagues that still have their names on the list, if 
they have an amendment, we are receptive to trying to dispose of them.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter's name be added as a 
cosponsor to Senator Wofford's and Senator Cochran's amendment which 
was adopted earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles]. Does he have any response from Mr. Mack as to 
whether or not his amendment is going to be called up?
  Mr. NICKLES. I think we need to keep that open for the time being.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator. I believe, under the 
proposal that Mr. Dole made earlier, Senators should let both managers 
know, or their respective manager know by 4:30 p.m. if they indeed are 
going to call up their amendment. If we do not hear by then, I think we 
will attempt to get unanimous consent to strike the remaining 
amendments from the list. Perhaps we will set a time for a motion to 
proceed to third reading and a final vote.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am informed by Senator Nickles that 
Senator Mack has indicated he does not intend to call up his amendment 
on the list. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
deleted from the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2408

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. Leahy 
     (for himself and Mr. Lieberman), proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2408.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       Within the funds provided in the Endangered Species 
     Prelisting and Recovery Program for the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, there is up to $500,000 available to purchase the 
     Greenland highseas fisheries quota of Atlantic salmon for the 
     third and final year of the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation's Atlantic Salmon Demonstration Program for the 
     Northeast.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to and that a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any appropriate statements in explanation thereof appear in 
the Record as though read.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. 
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this 
amendment which will approve this magnificent project to return the 
salmon to the rivers of New England. I thank the Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2408) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4602. 
Many speakers have preceded me, so I know all my colleagues understand 
what this bill represents. It is a prime example of a major shift in 
congressional decisionmaking priorities. In years past, politicians 
were elected to bring home the bacon. More recently, however, they have 
been elected to cut the fat.
  This may be the first year in a long, long time that nearly every 
appropriations bill has included major spending reductions. I serve on 
both the Budget and Appropriations committees, so I have had a hands on 
opportunity to see this shift take place over the past year and a half.
  We have already considered several appropriations bills this summer. 
They each carry a similar profile. They try to hold the line on 
important programs; they reduce FTE's; they phase down programs at, or 
close to, the end of their usefulness.
  The Interior appropriations bill is no different. In this bill, the 
committee has provided funds for only the most important programs, to 
achieve only the most critical goals. Critical conservation goals. 
Critical resource management goals. Critical investment goals. As you 
can imagine, Madam President, this has required a lot of tough 
decisions.
  Coming from a Western State, I can appreciate the difficulty in 
making these choices. I know the maintenance backlog at our national 
parks. I know the demand for tourist services and public education. I 
know the pressing need to repair culverts and restore habitat in the 
national forests.
  The agencies under the jurisdiction of this bill are a big part of 
communities all over Washington. When they lose employees, the 
communities lose neighbors. When they lack funds to implement laws or 
regulations, they create controversy. Each time the Senate considers 
even the obscure little provision in a bill like this, we send a ripple 
effect through States like mine.
  Against this backdrop, H.R. 4602 is an attempt to balance competing 
demands under difficult circumstances. While there are many worthy 
projects and important issues which the committee could not address, I 
feel this bill reflects an effort to be fair. Now that the committee 
has made these choices, now that we have identified our priorities, it 
is terribly important--to my State and many others--that we move 
quickly to pass this bill.
  Briefly, I would like to highlight some of the reasons H.R. 4602 is 
important to Washington State. First and foremost, it provides critical 
funding necessary to implement the Clinton forest plan.
  Funds are provided for this purpose to the Forest Service, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National 
Biological Survey, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although the 
committee was only able to provide about 75 percent of the needs 
identified by the agencies, H.R. 4602 contains enough for these 
agencies to legally implement the plan. These funds are sufficient to 
allow planning, watershed assessment, and section 7 consultations to 
proceed. In other words, to get things moving and keep them moving.
  In addition, funds are provided for watershed restoration. This work 
provides much needed jobs throughout the national forests in my State. 
It is also a solid investment to make sure the forests of the future 
remains healthy and productive.
  Many people have criticized the President's plan. Believe me, it is 
easy to criticize, because multiple-use forest management is very 
complicated. But it is also easy to oversimplify the problem when 
things are not going well.
  Those of us elected in 1992 inherited a train wreck. This 
administration was asked to correct for a decade of overcutting, 
followed by 5 years of mismanagement, inaction, litigation, and 
division. Who in their right mind would believe this problem could be 
repaired overnight?
  To use President Clinton's words, his plan will bring the 25 million 
acres of national forest into a ``scientifically credible, legally 
responsible, and economically sustainable'' management plan. There is a 
lot at stake; I think we in Congress need to support the effort.
  Posed with the choice between jobs and the environment, the President 
said, ``both.'' The goal is to keep the forest healthy and the harvest 
rate sustainable. That way, we will know how much timber can be cut 
while maintaining biological diversity. It will take some time yet to 
know if the plan will work. If it does, the Pacific Northwest forest 
plan will be a national model for multispecies ecosystem management. I 
certainly hope all my colleagues will recognize the significance; this 
administration is willing to take the heat to demonstrate that the 
choice between jobs and the environment is false.
  There are several other issues addressed in this bill that are 
important to Washington State. It contains $3.5 million for the Park 
Service to conduct an environmental impact statement on the acquisition 
and removal of two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River. In May 1994, 
the Park Service completed a feasibility study on restoring salmon runs 
to the Elwha River pursuant to Public Law 102-495, the Elwha River 
Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act. This study concludes it would 
be feasible to restore the salmon runs by removing the dams. Such 
course of action would enable the Federal Government, the Lower Elwha 
S'Klallam Tribe, and certain private interests to avoid lengthy, 
contentious, and expensive litigation.
  I recognize that proceeding with dam removal in future years would 
force the Federal Government to incur significant costs. However, I 
believe that costs of such action would be less than exposing the 
Government to a costly, court-imposed settlement. I hope introduced 
legislation to authorize involvement on the part of the Bureau of 
Reclamation in the future. For now, I hope the Federal Government will 
continue to proceed with implementation of Public Law 102-495.
  H.R. 4602 also provides funds for several important local Federal 
Government obligations. For example, it includes $2.5 million under 
State and private forestry special projects to complete the federal 
obligation to Skamania County, WA related to construction of the 
Skamania Lodge. This is an extremely important item given the historic 
relationship of Skamania County to the Federal Government under the 
Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act. Non-Federal funds were raised 
and expended on this project with the understanding the Forest Service 
would contribute to community efforts. It is doubly important 
considering the reduction in timber production on the Gifford Pinchot 
National Forest, which comprises over 85 percent of the county 
landbase.
  In addition, H.R. 4602 includes $4.2 million to complete work at the 
Johnston Ridge Observatory at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic 
Monument. In the first 7 months it was open, 800,000 people visited the 
Coldwater Visitor Center. Overall, 3.3 million visitors saw the 
monument during 1993. During this time, a shuttle bus service has been 
operated enabling people to reach Johnston Ridge. However, full road 
and parking facilities have not been completed. Such facilities will be 
necessary to accommodate anticipated visitation to Johnston Ridge.

  Finally, there are funds in the bill to address several land 
acquisition projects that will ensure important conservation goals are 
met, including the Alpine Lakes region, the Nisqually National Wildlife 
Refuge, the Skagit Wild and Scenic River, and Cape Horn in the Columbia 
Gorge.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been hit particularly hard 
by spending reductions. This is truly unfortunate, as it offers the 
best opportunity for nuts and bolts conservation activities. For 
example, the I-90 corridor in the Cascade Mountains is comprised of 
checkerboard ownership in some of the most biologically diverse old 
growth forests of the region. LWCF funds could be used to consolidate 
federal ownership to ensure wildlife conservation and recreational 
opportunities are maintained.
  In fact, the bill includes $3.7 million to acquire the Silver Creek 
drainage, the last remaining undisturbed migration corridor from the 
North Cascades to the South Cascades. However, funds are scarce, and 
this project only represents the tip of the iceberg. I encourage the 
Forest Service to work with the principal landowner in the corridor to 
determine whether a comprehensive land exchange is possible. This would 
be the best way to protect the corridor and relieve pressure on scarce 
LWCF resources.
  Madam President, there are many more important provisions in this 
bill. Every State with significant public lands, every State with an 
interest in energy conservation, every State with a national park needs 
this bill to pass. It is a good, tough bill. It reflects our need for 
tight purse strings, but it also supports so many worthy programs. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4602, so we can move quickly 
to conference with the House and complete work on this bill.


                  the national endowment for the arts

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in support of the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Since its inception in 1965, the NEA has expanded opportunities for 
all Americans. It has broadened our cultural experience and allowed an 
entire nation to participate in the arts.
  Madam President, we have heard all the horror stories and gruesome 
tales of NEA funding. It is easy to focus on the sensational. It is 
easy to score debating points. It is easy to use the NEA for an agenda 
that has nothing at all to do with funding for the arts.
  In the midst of these election year politics, let us keep our eye on 
the facts. Fewer than 50 of the 100,000 grants made by the Endowment in 
its 29-year history have created controversy. That is five-thousandths 
of 1 percent of its activity. That is a pretty impressive record.
  You see, Madam President, no one has ever accused me of being a 
member of the cultural elite. I am just an ordinary citizen and a mom. 
So, when I review the NEA budget, I do it from that perspective. I 
focus on the ordinary aspects of NEA funding. On the ways our kids 
benefit from NEA-backed programs. And, on the impact of budget cuts to 
the NEA on our young people's education.
  The fact remains that few Government agencies have a record of cost 
effectiveness that can match that of the NEA. For less than one dollar 
per citizen, the NEA has supported this Nation's cultural life. You 
should not reward fiscal responsibility with budget cuts.
  Madam President, the National Endowment for the Arts invests in 
artistic programs which directly benefit citizens throughout the 
Pacific Northwest.
  In my home State of Washington, the State Arts Commission receives 
grants that allow it to fund arts organizations and arts activities in 
the K-12 schools. And, it undertakes special projects for isolated 
rural communities.
  Thanks to the NEA, the children of my State do not have to be rich to 
learn about the arts. They do not have to live in cities. The treasures 
of our National Gallery are available for schools in central and 
eastern Washington. And, NEA-funded programs continue to benefit my 
friends and neighbors across the State. And, I will bet most of our 
colleagues have had similar experiences in their States.
  That is why I am so concerned about these cuts. Many Washington State 
organizations receive direct funding from the Endowment through the 
programs targeted by the cuts. Let me take a minute to tell you about 
some of these programs which could be cut by this bill.
  The NEA funds a Contemporary Theatre which delights audiences 
annually with its production of ``A Christmas Carol'' and its season of 
plays by contemporary playwrights.
  NEA funding allows the University of Washington's Meany Hall to 
present the finest mix of modern dance and classical and world music 
that you will find on the west coast. It reaches more than 50,000 
people annually by making performances possible in Seattle--and in 
Bellingham, Olympia, and Tacoma as well.
  In addition, Meany Hall conducts community outreach activities that 
make a real difference in young people's lives. The hall enables 
visiting artists to serve at-risk youth in our community through public 
school workshops, student matinees, and lecture demonstrations.
  The Carter Family Puppets receives a grant from the NEA that helps 
them entertain and educate young audiences with original stories and 
folk tales from all cultures from their studios in the Phinney Ridge 
area.
  Young people marvel at the work of Dale Chihuly. I have a poster in 
my front office of his nationally recognized Pilchuk Glass School. 
Thanks in part to NEA grants, he has resurrected the fine art of blown 
glass, and given our young people a direct link with this beautiful art 
form.
  The NEA helps young people in Washington State. Seattle's Children's 
Theatre is one of only four Equity children's theatres in the country. 
It is valued for its efforts to address issues surrounding ethnic 
diversity and families.
  And, last but not least, the Southeast Effective Development is a 
community arts organization that serves Seattle's central area with 
arts programs for at-risk youth.
  The Endowment helps nurture the arts in Washington in numerous other 
ways as well.
  Centrum, a nonprofit arts organization located in the small coastal 
town of Port Townsend, was founded 21 years ago because the National 
Endowment for the Arts made a key $35,000 start-up grant. That grant 
enabled the organization to begin developing arts programs in an 
abandoned military facility called Fort Worden.
  In the ensuing years, Centrum has established a national reputation 
for programs ranging from elementary and secondary school arts 
workshops to senior citizens Elderhostels.
  Centrum makes a major difference to the quality of life in our State. 
It also pumps over $4 million annually into the Port Townsend economy, 
which is reeling from the depressed timber industry across the Olympic 
Peninsula.
  Madam President, it is the best of all possible scenarios. NEA 
dollars improve the quality of life in Washington and provide a 
multiplier effect for business as well.
  The Seattle Opera is one of Washington State's many NEA 
beneficiaries. Some believe this funding only goes to their staged 
productions which played to more than 100,000 people last season. But, 
the Seattle Opera reaches an additional 150,000 people of all ages 
through its educational programs.
  Tacoma and Pierce County have benefited greatly from the endowment.
  The NEA has assisted the construction of the new Theatre on the 
Square and helped restore the historic Rialto Theatre. These spaces 
stage more than 250 performances per year for families through Pierce 
County.
  And, the NEA has provided funding through the Western States Arts 
Federation. The Federation has enabled citizens to see dances, music, 
and theatre representing many cultures and art forms.
  You see, Madam President, these are just a few of the ways the NEA 
has been contributing to the cultural life and economic health of my 
small corner of the country. We have heard all about the controversial 
grants, but let us keep focused on the entire picture. Let us recognize 
the enormous good done by the NEA.
  Before I conclude these brief remarks, I must recognize the 
leadership of NEA's new Chair. I have a great deal of confidence in 
Jane Alexander. In meetings with her, I am all the more excited about 
her goal of improving the agency's image, and her vision to bring the 
best art to the most people.
  Madam President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this great 
institution and to appropriate as much of the President's $171.1 
million request as possible.


                    national endowment for the arts

  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, Pennsylvania's cultural life is as rich 
and diverse as its people. The National Endowment for the Arts has 
played an invaluable role in strengthening our cultural life. Through 
its grants to organizations and individuals, the NEA has enabled the 
arts to thrive in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. From our large 
cities to the smallest rural areas, the National Endowment for the Arts 
makes opera, folk arts, drama, dance--our cultural heritage--accessible 
to all Americans.
  I recently met Adia Dobbins-Hickman, a high school student from 
Johnstown, PA. Adia participates in the Summer Music Institute that is 
run by the Johnstown Symphony Orchestra. She told me that this program 
is training the next generation of musicians. This music program 
enables children to spend part of the summer learning music from 
members of the Johnstown Symphony Orchestra. In Johnstown, the arts are 
a community effort. Businesses, schools and parents all help support 
the Summer Institute--and the NEA is a full partner in this program.
  The NEA also helps support the Pittsburgh Dance Council. The artists 
who are associated with the Pittsburgh Dance Council bring the joy of 
dance into the Pittsburgh public schools. This year they presented 
``Frick on Stage'' at a middle school, the Frick International Studies 
Academy. Students were involved in every stage of the performance. They 
performed, made the sets and the costumes, and did the choreography.
  These are just two examples. Since the NEA was founded in 1966, the 
number of community-based local arts agencies in Pennsylvania grew from 
0 to 75, and the number of performing arts companies, museums, arts 
centers and other arts organizations grew from 300 to 3,000. And each 
year, public funding has brought arts education to thousands of 
Pennsylvania school children.
  In the past few years, Congress has taken a careful look at the 
process for making Federal grants for the arts--and many improvements 
were made. Yet some continue to try to use the NEA to make a political 
point. The NEA has made over 100,000 grants. Yet only a handful get 
national attention. I do not agree with every grant that the NEA has 
made over the past 26 years. Some are not my taste, and some are 
personally distasteful. But I was not elected to the Senate to be an 
arts critic.
  Funds invested in the arts yield a substantial and direct financial 
return. Almost all grants made by the NEA require some match of funds 
by the grantee--so NEA funds leverage significant additional private 
and public support for the arts. In addition, the arts generate both 
direct and secondary benefits in employment and revenue, contributing 
substantially to the economic health of communities throughout the 
Nation.
  But the greatest contribution of the NEA is that it enriches the 
lives of millions of Americans and enables us to enjoy and appreciate 
our cultural heritage.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I regret that it is necessary once 
again this year to take the Senate's time to discuss issues pertaining 
to the Tongass National Forest in the southeastern part of my State.
  Unfortunately, it seems to take increasing amounts of time of all of 
us to try to work through the issues with this area of Alaska. It is a 
great portion of my State. I should have a map here to point out to the 
Members of the Senate exactly what I am talking about. The southeastern 
panhandle is essentially the Tongass Forest, as it is a very vital part 
of the economy of our State. It has been a substantial producer of 
jobs, income, and recreation. It is a diversified area.
  I raised in committee the subject of an amendment, and I passed an 
amendment around. At that time the distinguished Senator from Louisiana 
[Mr. Johnston] asked that I not offer that amendment because he wanted 
a chance to consider it.
  I thank Senator Johnston and his staff on the Energy Committee for 
taking the time to work with me on that amendment, and I thank Senator 
Byrd and his staff, particularly Sue Masica, for the time they worked 
on that amendment.
  On reflection, and after having discussed the matter with the 
industry people in my State, I am not going to offer that amendment, 
and I want to explain to the Senate why not. I hope that there will be 
a chance in other instances here this year to raise the question of the 
activities of the Forest Service that go beyond the scope of existing 
law, but I have decided, as I said, that this is not the time to 
proceed with the amendment that I circulated.
  That amendment, Madam President, was in effect to tell the Forest 
Service to abide by existing law. The amendment would have prohibited 
the expenditure of funds to implement a brand new management practices 
that are not authorized under the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Those 
management prescriptions are ``goshawk perimeters'' and ``habitat 
conservation areas.'' For the memory of the Senate, that is an act that 
was passed after a series of years of deliberations. It set forth a new 
concept for management of the Tongass Forest, and it specifically 
revalidated the whole concept of land-use planning in the Tongass 
Forest.
  In order to have any activity by the Forest Service in the Tongass, 
it must be pursuant to the procedures laid out by Congress in 
authorizing the Tongass land management plan. We call that TLMP. Those 
management prescriptions are not part of that Tongass land management 
plan and have not received the National Environmental Protection Act 
approval as is required by law. They have already reduced the harvest 
volumes in the Tongass for commercial timber operations by 40 to 50 to 
60 percent.
  Those prescriptions, Madam President, have withdrawn 300 square miles 
of the Tongass Forest. They violate the spirit of the bill we call 
ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
  In that act, which passed the Congress and has set the pattern for 
development of and use of Federal lands, and particularly has 
established the policy for future use of Federal lands, section 1326, 
and I read it and quote from it, states:

       No further executive branch action which withdraws more 
     than 5,000 acres in aggregate of public lands within the 
     State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance with 
     this section. To the extent authorized by existing law, the 
     President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the 
     State of Alaska exceeding 5,000 acres in the aggregate which 
     withdrawal shall not become effective until notice provided 
     in the Federal Register and both Houses of Congress. Such 
     withdrawal shall terminate 1 year after notice of such 
     withdrawal has been submitted to Congress.

  That clause was intended--we call it the no-more clause--that there 
will be no more Federal withdrawal of lands in Alaska unless 
specifically approved by Congress if they exceed 5,000 acres in the 
aggregate.
  That law prohibits executive branch action that unilaterally 
withdraws land.
  What has happened in the southeastern area in the Tongass Forest is 
that the Forest Service has now drawn circles around goshawk trees, and 
they have established habitat conservation areas within the Tongass 
that have withdrawn more than 5,000 acres. No notice has been published 
in the Federal Register, and the Congress has not been notified as 
required by section 1326.
  Madam President, the goshawk is not an endangered species. Similar 
action has been taken with regard to the wolf in southeastern Alaska. 
The wolf is not an endangered species in my State.
  The withdrawals violate the Tongass Timber Reform Act itself. Set 
asides in the Tongass total 6.99 million acres, including 1.32 million 
added, as a matter of fact, in the TTRA. That means that of the whole 
Tongass Forest approximately one-tenth of the forest is still available 
for forest activity.
  The whole area was set aside as an area to be developed by the Forest 
Service under management practices to set a standard for the private 
timber industry.
  It was the great Gifford Pinchot theory that we should have national 
forests and keep them in public ownership, develop management plans for 
timber utilization, and use those plans and implementation of them as a 
yardstick to measure the performance of the private timber industry.
  The withdrawals that have been made in my State by law have been made 
for preservation purposes. They are primarily wilderness areas. They 
are roadless, and they are not capable of being harvested in any way or 
utilized in any way by the timber industry.
  These additional withdrawals now come after the enactment of the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act in which Congress itself promised that the 
amount set aside for wilderness would not disturb the timber economy of 
southeastern Alaska.
  What has happened is every year since the Tongass Timber Reform Act 
has been passed I have been forced to come here to the floor to confer 
with my friend from West Virginia to try to make the Forest Service 
abide by that law. And I was prepared to do that again.
  Of the promises made in the Tongass Timber Reform Act, one of them 
was that the Forest Service would meet market demand. Prior to that 
time we had a commitment that there would be 4.5 billion board feet of 
timber made available every 10 years. The environmental community 
objected to that because they said it mandated cutting timber without 
regard to demand. So we negotiated. We said: All right. The Forest 
Service will prepare timber for market based upon its own projection of 
market demand. Section 705 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act 
specifically said:

       Subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and 
     requirements of the National Forest Management Act, the 
     Secretary shall seek to provide a supply of timber from the 
     Tongass timber forest which (1) meets the annual market 
     demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the market 
     demand from such forest for each planning cycle.

  That, to us, was a promise. We gave up the commitment. This was an 
absolute commitment. The law mandated availability of 4.5 billion board 
feet with a 10-year cycle. In its place was the concept of market 
demand estimation by the Forest Service and a commitment by the Forest 
Service to prepare timber for marketing to meet that demand.
  Alaskans always view the word ``promise'' in connection with the 
words of Robert Service--and my friend, I am sure, from West Virginia 
will mention that--``A promise made is a debt unpaid.''
  I personally was criticized when I went back to Alaska for having 
agreed to the Tongass Timber Reform Act. It was a settlement of a long-
standing dispute with the environmental community. But for the working 
people of the Tongass National Forest the debt remains unpaid.
  Madam President, in no year has the Forest Service made timber 
available to meet market demand, not once. And every year I have come 
to my friend from West Virginia and the Senator from Oklahoma, as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, and said, ``I have to have 
another amendment. We have to have some way to try to jack up the 
Forest Service to meet the requirements of this law, the Tongass Timber 
Reform Act.''
  The Forest Service has estimated that the market demand will be in 
the range of 400 million board feet throughout the 1990's. I think this 
estimate is very interesting. I ask unanimous consent that the 
estimate, along with other items I have attached here from existing 
law, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604 [National Forest Management Act]

       (g) Promulgation of regulations for development and 
     revision of plans; environmental considerations; resource 
     management guidelines; guidelines for land management plans.
       * * * [T]he Secretary shall * * * promulgate regulations, 
     under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 
     of 1960 [16 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec. 528-531], that set out the 
     process for the development and revision of the land 
     management plans, and the guidelines and standards prescribed 
     by this subsection. The regulations shall include, but not be 
     limited to--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (3) specifying guidelines for land management plans 
     developed to achieve the goals of the Program which--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 
     based on the suitability and capability of the specific land 
     area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and * 
     * * provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, 
     for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree 
     species similar to that existing in the region controlled by 
     the plan;

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (d) Public participation in management plans; availability 
     of plans; public meetings--
       The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the 
     development, review, and revision of land management plans 
     including, but not limited to, making the plans or revisions 
     available to the public at convenient locations in the 
     vicinity of the affected unit for a period of at least three 
     months before final adoption, during which period the 
     Secretary shall publicize and hold public meetings or 
     comparable processes at locations that foster public 
     participation in the review of such plans or revisions.
                                  ____


                             Market Demand

 TABLE 3-119.--SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED PERIODIC ALASKA TIMBER HARVEST BY OWNER, HARVEST BY PRODUCT, 
                                 AND PRODUCTION OF FOREST PRODUCTS, 1970-2010\1\                                
                      [Timber harvest by owner and timber imports (in million board feet)]                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   National                  Other      Timber  
                       Period                         All owners    forest      Private     public      imports 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975................................................       554.7       489.4        17.7        54.6         0.0
1980................................................       537.4       411.0       133.8        46.1        25.5
1985................................................       572.7       280.7       266.2        25.8        34.5
1990................................................       787.5       381.5       376.0        30.0        13.7
1995................................................       595.5       403.5       162.0        30.0        15.0
2000................................................       538.2       403.2       105.0        30.0        15.0
2005................................................       527.1       397.1       100.0        30.0        15.0
2010................................................       530.8       400.8       100.0        30.0        15.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Data are averages centered on the year they are reported for, except 2010 reports the average for 2008-2010. 
  Annual data are reported in Brooks and Haynes (in press).                                                     
                                                                                                                
Source: Haynes and Brooks, 1990.                                                                                


  TABLE 3-60.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN PRODUCTIVE OLD-GROWTH FOREST ACRES  
            COMPARED TO 1954, (INCLUDES DESIGNATED WILDERNESS           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of 1954    
                                                  productive old growth 
                                                 remaining under current
                                                   revised draft TLMP   
                                               -------------------------
                                                 Preferred   Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total old growth--1954: 5,438,547 acres                                 
    Percent remaining in year:                                          
        1990..................................           93  ...........
        2000..................................           91  ...........
        2010..................................           88  ...........
        2040..................................           78  ...........
        2150..................................           70  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In addition, by the year 2150, much of the second growth 
     will be 160-200 years old. Thus it will have old growth 
     characteristics and can be used as habitat.
                                  ____



                                          U.S. Forest Service,

                                         Juneau, AK, May 27, 1994.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I appreciate the time we had in your 
     office to discuss Alaska issues. The visit will be most 
     helpful to me as I assume my duties as Regional Forester.
       Duane Gibson asked that I provide clarifications regarding 
     how the Forest Service in Alaska intends to address the 
     proposed ``PACFISH'' watershed/habitat strategy that is 
     currently being considered for application in the lower 48 as 
     interim direction.
       As stated in the Environmental Assessment for the proposed 
     strategy in the lower 48, (Reference: Alternatives Considered 
     But Eliminated From Detailed Study, page 24), Alaska was 
     eliminated from consideration of interim direction because 
     ``Generally anadromous fish stocks and habitat conditions in 
     Alaska are not as degraded as those in the contiguous United 
     States. Agency biologists and others have determined that 
     these stocks generally are not in need of interim direction 
     to ensure options are maintained.'' The other reason was 
     because of the specific instructions in the FY 1994 Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to prohibit 
     application of the PACFISH standards and guidelines to the 
     Tongass National Forest.
       The Forest Service in Alaska is currently responding to the 
     Conference Committee direction to determine if any additional 
     protection is needed on the Tongass National Forest. The 
     study is due to be completed by the end of this fiscal year. 
     The results of the study and other available information will 
     be used to determine whether any change to management 
     direction may be needed. That determination will be made 
     through our land management planning process, with public 
     involvement and NEPA compliance.
       We in the Alaska Region of the Forest Service look forward 
     to working with the States of Alaska and all interested 
     parties as we proceed with the study and follow-up analyses.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Phil Janik,
                                                Regional Forester.
                                  ____


      [Excerpt from PACFISH Environmental Assessment for Lower 48]

       Alternative B.: The option of applying interim direction to 
     Agency-administered lands in Alaska was eliminated for the 
     following reasons:
       1. Generally, anadromous fish stocks and habitat conditions 
     in Alaska are not as degraded as those in the contiguous 
     United States. Agency biologists and others have determined 
     that these stocks generally are not in need of interim 
     protection to ensure that options are maintained.
       2. The FY 1994 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act contains language that prohibits the application of 
     PACFISH standards and guidelines to the Tongass National 
     Forest during fiscal year 1994.
       3. During FY 1994, the Agencies will conduct stream 
     analyses and studies and will review procedures regarding 
     land management to evaluate the effectiveness of current 
     stream protection and determine the need for additional 
     protection of lands and resources they administer in Alaska.
       Alternative C: The option of applying interim direction to 
     watersheds beyond the range of anadromous fish, but where 
     there is habitat important to at-risk resident fish species--
     such as the bull trout, was eliminated because it is beyond 
     the scope of this environmental assessment, and because 
     independent initiatives to address resident fish habitat 
     management already have begun. This option will be further 
     examined in the geographically specific EISs, which will 
     consider local conditions and the status of various resident 
     fish stocks.
       Public involvement during the scoping process for the 
     geographically specific EISs will examine options for 
     management after the interim period and may produce 
     alternatives that include some of the geographic options 
     considered but eliminated from detailed study.


                management direction options eliminated

       A number of management direction options for standards, 
     guidelines, and procedures were considered, ranging from 
     current direction to alternatives specifying riparian goals, 
     interim riparian management objectives, standards and 
     guidelines, a new definition of riparian area, Key Watershed 
     identification, and increasing levels of road and/or 
     watershed analysis.
       Six management direction alternatives were eliminated from 
     detailed study:
       Alternative A: This alternative generally assumed that 
     forest plan and LUP goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, 
     riparian areas, and procedures are sufficient for interim 
     protection. However, it would have modified current direction 
     by (I) applying draft Forest Service California Region (R5) 
     minerals management standards and guidelines within riparian 
     areas;
                                  ____


   SALE SCHEDULE SUMMARY--FISCAL YEAR 1992 AND 1993 TONGASS TIMBER SALE SCHEDULE ACCOMPLISHMENTS; 4TH QUARTER   
                  FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1995 TONGASS TIMBER SALE SCHEDULE                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Independent                    
                                                                                   offer                        
                       Fiscal year                            KPC      APC   ------------------  Total    Grand 
                                                             offer    offer     SBA/                      total 
                                                                               SSTS     Open                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992......................................................      225      224       33        7       40      489
1993......................................................       46      211       61        0       61      318
1994:                                                                                                           
    1st-3d Qtr............................................      111        0        5       23  .......  .......
    4th Qtr...............................................       70        0       31       40  .......  .......
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      1994 total..........................................      181        0       36       63       99   \1\280
1995......................................................      220        0       74                           
                                                                              \3\(75)       26      100   \2\320
Volume under contract as of June 1, 1994..................      193       41       48        5       53      287
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes 138 MMBF (sawlog + utility volume) of reoffer sales.                                                
\2\Includes 26 MMBF (sawlog + utility volume) of reoffer sales.                                                 
\3\Three sales listed in the Tentative FY95 Sale Schedule but NOT included in the volume totals are:            
(1) 1995--Saginaw (31.2 MMBF) (within goshawk home range).                                                      
(2) 1995--King George (22.5 MMBF); (within radius of known goshawk activity).                                   
(3) 1995--Rowan (21.0 MMBF) (within goshawk home range).                                                        
                                                                                                                
Note.--All numbers are sawlog + utility volume.                                                                 

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the third document is a chart that was 
prepared by the Forest Service to show the estimate of total old growth 
in the forest. This is a forest where many people want to protect the 
old growth, and we have joined with that idea. I joined in the Tongass 
Timber Reform Act to make certain that the specific areas that required 
protection in the Tongass were permanently protected. They are 
wilderness or LUD II. They are no longer subject to harvesting at all.
  Now the claim is being made that the areas that were left open for 
timber harvesting, somehow or other, if they are harvested, will cause 
the old growth to disappear.
  Madam President, when we talked about the concept of the availability 
of old growth in connection with the problems in the Pacific Northwest, 
specifically when we were talking about the area of the spotted owl, 
there was a problem there of disappearance, they thought, of the old 
growth. And there was even some debate over whether the owl habitat 
would be sufficient to preserve the spotted owl under the President's 
plan. That plan reduced old growth in the Pacific Northwest from 15 
percent to 12 percent in this decade.
  Madam President, the plan for the Tongass Timber Reform Act for the 
whole Tongass is such that the percentage of old growth remaining in 
this decade is 93 percent. Man has disturbed 7 percent of the old 
growth of the Tongass. By the year 2000, it is estimated to be 91 
percent; by the year 2010, 88 percent. I could go down the list.
  By the year 2150, the old growth--mind you, the year 2150--the old 
growth remaining in the Tongass under the plan that was submitted as 
the preferred alternative, by the way, in 1991, under that plan, 70 
percent of the old growth will remain in southeastern Alaska, as 
compared to 12 percent of the old growth in all of the Pacific 
Northwest forest.
  So I think anyone that wants to bring in a red herring around here is 
going to talk about old growth in the Tongass. The Tongass is 
practically all old growth. The question is whether the percentage of 
the Tongass that was left open for commercial harvest and to sustain 
the timber industry in Alaska will be allowed to be prepared for 
marketing and will in fact be marketed.
  Incidentally, let me hasten to point out, Madam President, the 
cutting cycle in the Tongass forest is over 100 years. Less than one-
tenth of the forest is available for harvest, and yet the sustained-
yield cycle is over 100 years.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that we are not 
cutting this forest at a very rapid rate. The Tongass Timber Reform Act 
was to provide timber to sustain the then existing industry. We agreed 
the industry would never expand; that we would preserve a timber 
operation base there at the level it was at the beginning of the 1990's 
and no further. Everyone knew that the combination of the cutting 
cycle, plus the amount that was left open for commercial harvest would 
mean the timber industry could not grow anymore.
  But what has the Forest Service done? It set up a policy to shrink 
it. Each year it has shrunk this industry that had made a promise to 
prepare timber to meet the demand to that industry in 1990.
  I cannot believe that the Forest Service should be allowed to ignore 
the law, so I was prepared to offer an amendment saying, ``Why don't 
you obey the law?''
  The more I thought about that, I thought, ``Why doesn't the industry 
take this Forest Service to court?'' And that is what I am here today 
to say.
  I have advised the southeastern Alaska forest industry to take this 
Forest Service to court; teach it to read the law, and get the courts 
to mandate it to abide by the law.
  Each year, we appropriated funds. Every year for the last 3 years, 
the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oklahoma have 
worked with me to make available money to be sure that the Forest 
Service could prepare timber for sale in the Tongass to meet that 
market demand.
  We have a concept of a pipeline. So much money has been appropriated 
to allow them to have funds sufficient to meet market demand. But some 
of those, practically all of the sales, were challenged in some way by 
the environmental community. There were some contract disputes within 
the industry itself, but there was enough money to meet market demand, 
as it has been estimated.
  The money provided by the Congress was for an environmental review of 
each timber sale under the National Environmental Policy Act. And those 
were to be completed prior to the timber sale being announced by the 
Forest Service.
  This year, it announced timber sales, conducted timber sales. It let 
the contract or offered timber. And after the contract was let, they 
said, ``Wait a minute. We are going to go out and we are going to draw 
5- and 10-mile no harvest circles''--each one of those, by the way, is 
70 to 300 square miles--``around every tree that has a goshawk nested 
in it.''
  Mind you, the goshawk is not endangered; it is not threatened in our 
State. It is in no way jeopardized by the timber harvest. Over two-
thirds of the timber forest of the Tongass is there for perfect goshawk 
production. But this service now is installing a new concept without 
compliance with the Tongass Timber Reform Act, without compliance with 
the Tongass Land Management Plan, and without NEPA review.
  The land use management concept is unique, by the way. It was 
applauded by the environmental circles. But now they say, ``Forget 
about it. Forget about it.''
  And what do they do beyond that? Now they have not announced or 
decided how large they are, but they are installing habitat 
conservation areas to protect the wolves in this area. They do not need 
them, obviously, in the wilderness area. Why are they putting up wolf 
protection areas in places that were set aside for timber production?
  We all knew what areas for timber meant. It meant timber production. 
It meant trees were going to be cut. They were going to be cut in a 
100-year cutting cycle, using standard land use management concepts. It 
was not a rapid clear-out of the whole area. There were to be scheduled 
timber contract sales and there were set-asides for small business. 
There were only two major large mills in the area. One is already 
closed now by the action of this Forest Service.
  Madam President, I just do not understand how the administration 
thinks it can pass a law by edict. It has not even published it in the 
Federal Register. It just told the Forest Service employees to go out 
and mark a circle around every one of those trees that has a goshawk 
nest in it, and no one can cut a tree within that circle.
  Those circles are often being made in the area that was designated to 
be a timber cutting area. They are, in fact, withdrawing land. Every 
one of those circles exceeds 5,000 acres. Every time they do it, they 
violate the law; not only the Tongass Timber Reform Act, but the Alaska 
Land Act, in the ``no more withdrawal'' section that I pointed out.
  I cannot understand why any administration believes they have the 
authority just by edict to change the law. Our people made investments 
based upon the concessions that were made, the compromises that were 
made, in the Tongass Timber Reform Act. They opened up small mills. We 
attracted some very small operators. They were waiting for these sales. 
They are probably hit harder than anyone by these new circles that are 
being drawn by the Forest Service.
  Now, I believe that there is no way that the Forest Service should be 
permitted to now adopt an option of protecting old growth habitat in an 
area that was set aside for timber production by promulgating an 
administrative policy to declare that within such a circle around every 
one of the goshawk nests and in the wolf habitat area that they have 
designated, there shall be no harvesting of timber.
  As I said, in the spotted owl area, we know what happened. There, the 
old growth had been used. As I said, in the Pacific Northwest, as I am 
told, under the President's plan, the percentage of reduction in old 
growth in the Pacific Northwest, from 15 to 12 percent that is 
contemplated under the President's plan, is the amount of old growth 
that will disappear in Alaska between now and 2010.
  In over 150 years, we will not have used more than 30 percent of the 
old growth in the operation of our timber industry, but the Pacific 
Northwest will have used 88 percent under the President's plan, which 
many criticize, in the next decade.
  I believe we have to find some way to deal with this. I have come to 
the floor today to say I am extremely disturbed. I cannot believe that 
I stood here on this floor and went through the debates we had on the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act, entered into the solemn compromises that we 
did, and the commitments that were made by the Congress to carry it 
out, and the Congress has in fact carried out our side, that this 
administration now says it will not allow the cutting within these 
circles and within these habitat areas in areas that were designated 
for commercial harvest.
  The promises made under the Tongass Timber Reform Act have not been 
kept by this administration. This administration is now in the process 
of eliminating the remaining jobs in southeastern Alaska in the timber 
industry. The Forest Service and the extreme environmental community 
have really just driven a stake right in the heart of the Tongass 
forest economy. There are literally hundreds of timber workers and 
their families who are appealing to us to take some action. 
Unfortunately, I have to tell them I know of no law we could pass here 
now that would tell the Forest Service not to do things in violation of 
existing law that would have any more effect on them than the two we 
have already passed.
  We thought there was peace in this area. I thought we had reached a 
conclusion that would yield an understanding between the various 
factions which exist in southeastern Alaska.
  There is no reason for doomsday about the survival of old growth 
timber in the Tongass forest; six-sevenths of it will never be cut. The 
one-seventh that will be harvested will take a 100-year cycle to 
complete.
  Let me say one other thing that bothers me, and the reason I am here 
today is that the extreme environmental community has contacted every 
Member of the Senate and urged them to vote against my amendment 
because, they say, I plan to disturb the Pacfish policy of the Pacific 
Northwest. Nothing could be further than the truth. And I am tired of 
these lying, deceitful people who come to Members of Congress and give 
out information like this.
  The interim strategy provided for the Pacific Northwest did not apply 
to Alaska at the time when it was devised. I asked to be present and 
meet with the President and his advisers in the Pacific Northwest when 
they conceived that policy, and I was told categorically you do not 
have to be there because we are not discussing Alaska situations. After 
the Pacfish policy was announced, some within the Forest Service said 
let us apply the Pacfish policy to Alaska.
  Again I went back and talked to the President's assistant. I have a 
letter from Mr. McLarty saying: ``Rest assured, we told you that policy 
does not apply to Alaska. It does not apply to Alaska.''
   Subsequently, the new regional forest manager, Mr. Phil Janik, 
assured me by letter dated May 27 of this year that ``Alaska was 
eliminated from consideration of interim direction'' associated with 
Pacfish. That was because--and I am quoting from his letter--``fish 
stocks and habitat conditions in Alaska are not as degraded as those in 
the contiguous United States.''
  Any determination that the Pacfish strategy ought to apply to Alaska, 
he told me, would be made through our land management planning process. 
That is what I am talking about now. He told me determination to apply 
Pacfish strategy to Alaska would be made through our land management 
planning process, with public involvement and NEPA compliance.
  That promise he made me with regard to Pacfish is exactly what has 
not been done with regard to these new policies that have been 
announced with regard to the goshawk and the wolf.
  I took the Forest Service assurance that they would comply with NEPA 
and with the TLMP planning process on Pacfish at face value. The 
amendment I presented to the committee was not an amendment that dealt 
with Pacfish, as the extreme environmental community has told Members 
of the Senate. The Pacfish policy was moot for Alaska, except through 
the land planning process. My amendment did deal with the land 
management actions that have been taken by the Forest Service 
concerning goshawks and wolves.
  I believe those portions of the economy of our State that rely upon 
commitments from the Federal Government as to the areas that will be 
made available for our utilization for economic development have a 
right to expect that executive agencies will follow the law. They 
deserve much more than they have received at the hands of the extreme 
environmentalists, and the time is going to come when I am going to 
start making some of these people tell the truth. We could have some 
laws passed that would put some teeth into what they can and cannot do 
in the Halls of Congress.
  But clearly the peace we thought we would get through the Tongass 
Timber Reform Act does not exist. I cannot believe that this Forest 
Service will continue this policy. As I have said, they have drawn, 
now, 5- and 10-mile no harvest circles around birds nests and around 
areas they have designated as wolf habitat conservation areas, in areas 
they themselves have already let contracts for and planned sales in, to 
permit small businesses to harvest the timber.
  I do believe the studies that are underway. If these tell me we have 
an endangered species in Alaska and we ought to take some action to 
preserve habitat to protect them, I will consider helping them. I do 
not disagree with the concept of protection of environment and species. 
but there is substantial protection in the Tongass already--nearly 7 
million acres. I do believe the people who just decide for some whim 
they are going to protect a different bird, this goshawk, differently 
than they do in the Southeast--the Southeastern part and the 
Southwestern part of the United States, that they are going to do it 
differently in Alaska--that it needs to be considered by Congress 
itself.
  I hope we find a way to convey to these people that it is time they 
read the law. It is time they understand that Alaskans made substantial 
compromises to finally get an agreement in the Tongass Timber Reform 
Act. That act was basically passed in order to assure that the 
southeastern portion of my State would have a constant timber economy.

  Let me state the conditions again. There would have been no increase 
in that economy at all. We did not contemplate increasing production. 
There is no contemplated use of any of the lands that were set aside, 
some of the most important, productive timber areas were set aside for 
wilderness values. But the area that was designated to be available for 
timber harvesting has now been set aside by Executive action under a 
new process that is not authorized by law, was not contemplated by the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act, is not within the concepts that were 
announced by Congress in the Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act, 
and I believe there is no reason for us, as Alaskan Members of the 
Senate, here on the floor today to ask the Senate to go on record to, 
in effect, tell the Forest Service to abide by existing law.
  So it is with great frustration I come to the Senate today. The 
projections have already been made by the Forest Service as to what is 
the demand. They are not subject to challenge, to my knowledge. We have 
specific legislation that requires the Secretary:

       To provide for public participation in the development, 
     review and revision of land management plans, including but 
     not limited to the making of plans or revisions available to 
     the public at convenient locations in the vicinity of the 
     affected unit for a period of at least 3 months before final 
     adoption, during which period the Secretary shall publicize 
     and hold public meetings or comparable processes at locations 
     that foster public participation in the review of such plans 
     and revisions. And there are public processes for amendments 
     to plans.

  These management prescriptions that I am talking about were not 
announced, not published in the Federal Register. No public notice was 
given. All we know is that people who are permitted by contract to 
harvest timber were told: ``Wait. You cannot go in this area. They have 
now been designated by the executive branch as being areas of no timber 
harvest now.''
  That is the executive branch usurping the power of Congress. I think 
it is dictatorial to the nth degree and I cannot really express my 
total--just disgust, to see this kind of development take place in an 
agency I have tried to help for so many years.
  Madam President, again, as I say, I am not going to offer that 
amendment. I challenge anyone of those people who put out those 
bulletins to Members of the Senate that Members have told me about to 
come forward and publicly meet me in front of the press and defend the 
lies they have passed out among the Members of the Senate. It is an 
atrocious practice that is going on around here, that people are 
passing out material and trying to convince Members of the Senate that 
another Member of the Senate, in particular this Member of the Senate, 
is going to do something that is unethical and unwarranted in terms of 
the conditions of his State.
  Madam President, I thank the Senate and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2409

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2409.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 89, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS FROM TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN 
                   ALASKA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The United States Forest Service has begun to implement 
     ad hoc prescriptive wildlife management measures in the 
     Tongass National Forest that reduce land areas available for 
     multiple use under the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), 
     thereby reducing timber harvest volumes in already prepared 
     harvest units below the level needed to protect timber 
     dependent communities;
       (2) The prescriptive measures termed ``habitat conservation 
     areas'' and ``goshawk protective perimeters'' are being used 
     to withdraw lands from timber management which have been 
     evaluated and approved for timber harvest pursuant to the 
     TLMP, National Environmental Policy Act, the Tongass Timber 
     Reform Act, and the National Forest Management Act;
       (3) Prescriptive management measures intended to protect 
     wildlife population viability should be accomplished through 
     amendments or revisions to the TLMP adopted in accordance 
     with the process described in the National Forest Management 
     Act at 16 U.S.C. 1604 (d) and (g);
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) funds made available under this act should not be used 
     to implement management actions (including, but not limited 
     to, prescriptions such as habitat conservation areas and 
     goshawk protective perimeters) which withdraw lands from 
     timber management or planned timber harvest in the Tongass 
     National Forest, unless such management actions are imposed 
     pursuant to a duly revised or amended Tongass Land Management 
     Plan, such revision or amendment having been made in 
     accordance with and subsequent to the public participation 
     provisions of Section 6(d) of the National Forest Management 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)); and
       (2) withdrawals of land areas of more than 5,000 acres from 
     timber management or planned timber harvest in the Tongass 
     National Forest for habitat conservation areas, goshawk 
     perimeters or for other special management prescriptions, 
     other than withdrawals provided for by the Tongass Land 
     Management Plan or revisions or amendments thereto, should 
     only be made in compliance with Section 1326(a) of the Alaska 
     National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3213(a)).

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as winter approaches, the people in 
southeastern Alaska, dependent on the timber industry--areas like 
Ketchikan, Craig, Klawock, Thorne Bay, Wrangell, Sitka, Rowan Bay, 
Coffman Cove, and Hoonah are going to suffer a severe hardship as a 
direct result of the actions of the U.S. Forest Service taken outside 
the law--outside the law, Mr. President--without regard for the public 
process, actions not supported by an administrative record and not 
supported by sound science.
  A little earlier this afternoon, this body accepted a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution by the junior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, 
calling on the Secretary of the Interior to allow San Antonio and 
surrounding areas to continue use of historic levels of water from the 
Edwards aquifer.
  My sense of the Senate asks the Forest Service to simply operate 
within the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. The amendment 
attempts to make clear that the Forest Service should not implement 
unilateral and unauthorized changes in land classifications, and that 
when it makes such far-reaching changes, it has to comply with 
Congress' previously provided land planning directives, including 
requirements for public comment. In other words, follow the law of the 
land.
  The issue of timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest has 
been contentious, as my senior colleague outlined, for a number of 
sessions in Congress, but throughout the years, we have agreed on 
tradeoffs that carefully and delicately balance the protection of more 
than 6 million acres of wilderness in our timber block. While we must 
protect these wilderness areas, we also need to preserve the economic 
livelihood of southeastern Alaska and the people thereof by ensuring 
the continuation of reasonable timber harvesting.
  That balance, crafted by Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and others on 
the Appropriations Committee, has been threatened and is now at great 
risk by improper and unsanctioned Forest Service actions.
  Congressional action in the Alaska National Interest Lands Act 
[ANILCA] and later in the Tongass Timber Reform Act, made clear both 
the intent of Congress and the specific application of the law. As the 
conference report on the Tongass Timber Reform Act stated, the 
Secretary was directed to provide ``a supply of timber which meets the 
market demands subject to the appropriations process, the requirements 
of the National Forest Management Act and all other applicable laws''--
all other applicable laws.
  The Forest Service is clearly ignoring these instructions. It has not 
identified, as Senator Stevens said, nor sought to meet the market 
demand for timber and is now actively violating its own instructions by 
making new and unsupportable reductions in timber harvest outside the 
public process of forest planning.
  The Forest Service has recently announced that despite the years of 
careful planning and efforts that have gone into crafting applicable 
and acceptable timber sales in southeastern Alaska, it is now going to 
overlay new no-harvest restrictions over areas previously approved for 
sales. These new restrictions were recently triggered by something that 
is new to this body. It is a petition list, a petition to list the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the 
Endangered Species Act. However, it is important to note that this is 
really a first in that these were only petitions, unsupported by any 
scientific evidence, not approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and filed, and admittedly--admittedly-supported by organizations that 
were simply attempting to stop timber harvesting on forest lands.
  So far, 16 nesting pairs of goshawks have been discovered. We do not 
know how many they previously had because they do not have that 
information. Around each tree, despite the lack of evidence that 
protection is warranted, the Forest Service is now proposing a 143,000-
acre no cutting circle. The circles mapped so far would remove a total 
of 210 square miles from previously approved timber sales. The Forest 
Service would remove this area from previously imposed timber sales and 
would do so without any evidence that the goshawk is in danger or even 
in the process of declining. In fact, there is no evidence that such 
protection is even helpful.
  Mr. President, the Forest Service finds a goshawk's nest and they put 
a circle around the area.
  In fact, there is no such evidence that such protection is even 
helpful with regard to the goshawk. Goshawks are highly mobile and 
frequently change their nesting location. One pair being studied 
earlier this year changed its nest from an unlogged area to one heavily 
logged area. It makes no sense spending this summer drawing circles 
around trees that the goshawks may not even use next year.
  One might think this is trivial. But this is affecting people's jobs, 
their lives, their ability to educate their children, and their ability 
to pay their mortgages.
  In addition to the goshawk, the Forest Service has come up with 
another one, the Archipelago wolf. Mr. President, there are thousands 
of wolves in Alaska. We have been in dispute in certain areas around my 
home of Fairbanks as to a reduction in the number of wolves so the 
caribou could prosper.
  But as far as the Forest Service is concerned, they are proposing a 
new habitat conservation area on top of timber harvest zones previously 
approved until full scrutiny under provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act has taken place. Yet, the fact is that the 
wolf numbers, including those in heavily harvested areas, are on the 
increase. As a matter of fact, most of the wolves are on Prince of 
Wales Island where most of the timber is being cut, and the reason the 
wolves are on Prince of Wales Island is because their main feed is 
there, the Sitka black tailed deer. There are no wolves on other major 
islands in southeastern Alaska--Admiralty Island, Baranof and 
Chichagof. No wolves, just lots of deer.
  So we have this inconsistency, and the Forest Service fails to 
recognize it. The fact is, wolf numbers, including those in the heavily 
harvested areas, as I said, are on the increase. The best 1989 figures 
showed a southeastern Alaska wolf population of 600-700. Today, the 
southeast Alaska wolf population is thought to be over 1,000.
  The only legal justification for the Forest Service actions, the only 
legal authority is found in the National Forest Management Act which 
provides that ``land management plans are to contain guidelines for the 
diversity of plant and animal communities.''
  It is very clear in the National Forest Management Act that 
provisions for wildlife are to be implemented or altered only through 
the full land management planning process including, Mr. President, 
provisions for public comment. That simply has not occurred.
  In summary, the Forest Service action is premature. These species are 
not listed as endangered, and there is no evidence that they are 
declining.
  Further, Mr. President, the Forest Service action is not supported by 
the law and does not comply with requirements for public comment.
  We only want the Forest Service to follow the law.
  Mr. President, I have another amendment, but the floor leaders have 
left the floor and the status of this amendment with regard to the 
majority is unknown to the Senator from Alaska at this time. It is my 
understanding that the minority, the Senator from Oklahoma, is willing 
to accept the amendment. But in view of the circumstances, unless the 
Chair objects, I will use this time to go into my second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2410

     (Purpose: To provide design and construction drawings for the 
 replacement of buildings accidentally destroyed by the National Park 
                    Service, and for other purposes)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, without losing my right to call for a 
vote, and in order to expedite the time in the Chamber, and within the 
appropriate procedure as dictated by the Parliamentarian, I would send 
my second amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2410.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: 
     ``Provided, that consistent with existing law and policy, the 
     National Park Service shall, at the request of the University 
     of Alaska Fairbanks, enter into negotiations regarding a 
     memorandum of understanding for the continued use of the 
     Stampede Creek Mine property consistent with the length and 
     terms of prior memoranda of understanding between the 
     National Park Service and the University of Alaska Fairbanks: 
     Provided, that within the funds provided, the National Park 
     Service shall undertake an assessment of damage and provide 
     the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, no later than May 1, 1995, cost estimates 
     for the reconstruction of those facilities and equipment 
     which were damaged or destroyed as a result of the incident 
     that occurred on April 30, 1987 at Stampede Creek within the 
     boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve; provided 
     further, the National Park Service shall work with the 
     University of Alaska Fairbanks to winterize equipment and 
     materials, located on the Stampede Creek mine property in 
     Denali National Park, exposed to the environment as a result 
     of the April 30, 1987 incident.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not sure of the status of the 
amendment which we are attempting to clear on both sides, but in any 
event, while we wait for the disposition by the floor leaders, I would 
like to proceed.
  Let me call your attention, Mr. President, to a situation that 
occurred in the spring in 1987. An explosion rocked a mine in a remote 
region of the Denali Park.
  I am going to call on my staff to locate the specific area. It is 
about 140 miles from Fairbanks.
  To give you some idea of location, this is Anchorage down here, and 
this is Fairbanks, and it is in the Denali National Park area, but it 
is not in the park itself. It is in the area that was designated park 
preserves, which was an addition to the park.
  It was an explosion of great magnitude, as these pictures will show 
you. This is a before picture, Mr. President, that shows the Stampede 
Creek coming in, and it shows the mill where the ore is ground up. This 
is an antimony mine. It was the second largest antimony mine in North 
America up until the mid 1980's.
  It should be pointed out that this is an isolated area, Mr. 
President. There is no road into the mine. The small road you see goes 
to an airfield about 4 miles away.
  Here you have the creek coming through, and the mineral deposits are 
underground. This is the living area for the camp.
  After the explosion, things looked a little different. This is the 
same picture of the mill after the explosion. This is another picture 
of the mill after the explosion.
  One can clearly see that there was great damage done.
  Mr. President, newspaper reports were sketchy. Few individuals really 
could have read between the lines to realize that one man's life's work 
was involved, and that the U.S. Army, the University of Alaska, and the 
National Park Service were interested parties but no one was willing to 
accept the blame as to who blew up the mine.
  Let me give you a very short version of this story. The fact is the 
National Park Service illegally took private property and blew it up, 
Mr. President, and in the process most likely violated a number of 
environmental laws as well as the provisions of the Historic 
Preservation Act.
  They did not have a permit, Mr. President. They simply blew it up.
  This is in the area, as I indicated, in the Denali National Park 
reserve, in the Kantishna Hills region. The mine was first opened in 
1959. Antimony is a high-priced metal used for alloys, medical 
purposes, and others. In 1942, a fellow by the name of Earl Pilgrim 
purchased the claims, and under his hand and direction the mine 
continued to operate and ship antimony until 1972. As I have said 
before, it was once the second largest antimony producer in North 
America.
  The Stampede mine was found to be eligible for listing on the 
National Register on June 20, 1989. The area contains some old historic 
structures with the exception of the structures that were blown up. The 
site is rich in equipment, machinery, tools, and other objects that 
made up the things of a mining camp. Many of these items are unique to 
the Pilgrim operation that reflect his own inventiveness and mechanical 
skills.
  In 1979, Stampede Mines, Ltd., entered into negotiations with the 
National Park Service and the University of Alaska, and as a result of 
those negotiations the mining company made a donation to the National 
Park Service of the surface rights, including a road access from the 
airstrip to buildings, water rights, stream banks, and so forth. It was 
thought at that time that the National Park Service possessed the 
wherewithal to better maintain and protect the historic structures.
  However, at the same time, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks School 
of Mineral Engineering, was donated all the mineral rights, the mining 
equipment, and the fixtures with mineral development restrictions for 
the education of the students, with the provision that it would be 
noncommercial; that it would be used for educational purposes. No 
commercial mining would be allowed, only small-scale educational 
mining. The buildings, roads, trails, and airstrip were owned by the 
Park Service, however the university would be responsible for 
maintaining the buildings.
  The School of Mineral Engineering was pleased with this arrangement, 
and they looked forward to utilizing the mine as a unique opportunity 
to learn firsthand about early mining procedures, the operations and 
equipment. Given the chance, they would like the opportunity to offer 
classes in the future.
  I submit a letter from the dean of the School of Mineral Engineering 
which addresses the mineral school's interest in the Stampede mine. I 
ask that be entered in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral 
           Engineering,
                                     Fairbanks, AK, July 25, 1994.
     Re university's Stampede Mine.

     Hon. Senator Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: This letter is in response to 
     concerns about the Stampede Mine being too remote for 
     academic programs. The University is developing programs that 
     will be cost effective to operate remotely. It is anticipated 
     that the classes will be small, between 6 and 12 students, 
     all transported by Cessna Caravan to the airstrip. Students 
     will be housed overnight, with fieldwork being conducted over 
     a period of several days to a few weeks. We feel such a 
     program will be an attractive offering to our summer sessions 
     and that its success will depend on cooperation with the 
     National Park Service.
       Should you have any questions, please call me. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert H. Trent,
                                                             Dean.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the educational program is consistent 
with the intent of the university's receipt of the property. The School 
of Mineral Engineering has developed a meaningful program that provides 
instruction and investigation about the environment by sound mineral 
exploration, mining techniques in a manner sensitive to the 
environment, as well as studying the geology, biology, and ecology of 
the area and studying the historical aspects of Mr. Pilgrim's mine.
  The program has already helped the mineral industry develop methods 
to explore and find and develop minerals on land located in sensitive 
areas throughout Alaska, even on land controlled by the Department of 
the Interior.
  Mr. President, it was to be an absolute win for the National Park 
Service, and a win in the field of education for the university. During 
1986 and 1987, National Park Service personnel conducted field 
inspections of old mining sites located on their lands for the purpose 
of identifying potential contaminated sites and hazardous conditions.
  At the end of July 1986, the Stampede Creek Mine was examined, and 
the inspectors recommended immediate action to examine the safety of 
old blasting caps and chemicals at the site. Before taking action, the 
inspectors recommended that the ownership issue be resolved. While the 
matter was treated as serious, but certainly not as an emergency, 
absolutely nothing occurred for the next 8 months.
  Subsequently, National Park Service personnel and members of the U.S. 
Army explosive ordnance detonation team arrived at the Stampede Mine 
site and, on April 30, 1987, added a new dimension to the words ``fire 
in the hole.'' The University of Alaska had no knowledge nor did the 
in-holders downstream that would be affected by the explosion. What did 
they do? They moved 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate that was private 
property of the university and placed it on top of the frozen Stampede 
Creek.
  Mr. President, for those of you who are not familiar, ammonium 
nitrate may sound dangerous. But in a packaged state it is common 
fertilizer. The Park Service piled 4,000 pounds of this fertilizer on 
the top of the creek bed and added several half gallon bottles of acid. 
The Park Service then retrieved dynamite caps from the assay lab. Then 
finally they added 45 pounds of high explosives, set the charge, left 
by helicopter, and sat on a mountain waiting for the charge to go off.
  Mr. President, the explosion left a crater 28 feet wide and 8 feet 
deep. Where does the creek go? The creek goes down to the river, and 
the river goes into the Tanana, and the Tanana goes into the Yukon and 
affects the fishery.
  Did they have an environmental impact statement? Certainly not. Was 
the EPA asked to look into it? Certainly. Did the EPA look into it? No.
  Mr. President, this is what it looked like prior to the explosion. 
Again, Mr. President, that is what it looks like after the explosion.
  The action also blew up a 5,000-ton tailings pile, which has a 
current value of $600,000. Unfortunately, the heavy metals of the 
tailings farm were blown about the surrounding environment.
  The U.S. Army incident report 176-23-87 stated that the National Park 
Service personnel were aware that the detonation would result in damage 
to the surrounding buildings and, according to Sergeant Seutter, ``At 
no time was it relayed to me that damage was unacceptable.''
  Mr. President, violations of law are very clear here. There are 
violations of the Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act involving wetlands, not to mention 
the taking and destruction of private property.
  What we have here clearly is a double standard. The Government and 
its agencies did not have to comply with the law.
  Further, since the explosion, some $2 million worth of mining 
equipment--some historic--has been damaged or destroyed due to 
exposure, inclement weather, and the normal Alaska freeze.
  Mr. President, my amendment does not attempt to rectify all the wrong 
that has been done. My amendment would simply direct the Park Service 
to work with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to negotiate a 
memorandum of understanding so that the university may continue their 
worthwhile educational program with some assurance of a program 
continuity, and to ensure that the $20,000 which the university 
invested and other moneys that they continue to invest will not be lost 
or spent in vain.
  Mr. President, my amendment also directs the Park Service, with 
appropriated park funds, to provide the appropriate committees with 
cost estimates for the repair and/or restoration of buildings and 
equipment damaged or destroyed by the National Park Service in this 
unfortunate incident, and to winterize equipment and materials now 
exposed to weather; in other words, winterize the equipment that is in 
this mill so we do not lose it.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not without precedent. This Senate 
took similar action on the Interior appropriations bill in the 102d 
Congress. The circumstances were almost identical, except for the fact 
that the superintendent of the Olympic National Park did not blow up 
the Kiwana's Club Lodge, which was a Government-leased building. But 
she did burn it down to the ground. In the Olympic National Park case, 
the Senate responded appropriately and directed that the lodge be 
rebuilt and that the rescinded permit be extended.
  I only ask my colleagues for equal treatment. The university's use of 
these buildings is based upon the transfer deed to the Park Service, 
which required that the buildings be available for educational uses.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks in support of the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that were made 
by our friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski, as well as those that 
were made by Senator Stevens. Both spoke with great conviction 
concerning various lands in Alaska and some inequities that have 
happened through the Department of the Interior. I compliment them for 
their earnestness, and also their willingness to work together.
  I might inquire of my friend from Alaska, he has both an amendment 
dealing with the mine and also a sense-of-the-Senate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have both.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague.
  Mr. President, I have reviewed both amendments. I personally do not 
have a problem with either of those, one of which the Senator from 
Alaska dealt with, and talked about the mine and said we should review 
what the cost would be for an equitable solution with the Forest 
Service. I hope that we can concur with that one.
  The second one is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment dealing with the 
same problem that the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, alluded to, 
and again, since it is a sense-of-the-Senate, I hope we can concur as 
well.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I simply remind my colleague that 
earlier in the day we accepted a sense-of-the-Senate on the San Antonio 
aquifer which involves even a more significant analysis of the 
Endangered Species Act than my amendment. In our case, neither the wolf 
nor the goshawk have been designated endangered. But the Forest Service 
has seen fit to withdraw land far in excess of that allowed under the 
law.
  So all we are asking for is that the Forest Service abide by the law. 
I certainly welcome any of my colleagues who care to debate what the 
law says.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of 
names of Senators who have possible amendments be reduced as follows: 
that Mr. Wellstone's name be cut from the amendment list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not think any Senators on this side of 
the aisle whose names appear on the list intend to call up their 
amendments. I think all of the amendments shown on the list from this 
side of the aisle can be reduced to colloquies, and those are being 
developed at the present time. Therefore, there would only be those 
amendments that are still on the list by Senators from the other side 
of the aisle. They might be called up and might not. I wonder if my 
colleague has any suggestions as to how to proceed.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the chairman will yield, we show Senator Brown has an 
amendment and Senator Burns has and amendment. I am not sure what 
Senator Brown's is. I think Senator Burns is trying to remedy his with 
a colloquy. Senators Coverdell and Nunn, I think, can be done with a 
colloquy. Senator Danforth has an amendment, and he will be to the 
floor soon. Senator Domenici has an amendment trying to find sources of 
funding. I think he is just about to make that happen. Senator Gramm is 
listed for two amendments. I am not sure they will be offered. Senator 
Murkowski has both amendments now pending before the Senate and, 
hopefully, will be disposed of quickly. That will conclude the 
amendments outstanding on this side.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his response. Which 
amendment by Mr. Murkowski is pending?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe my sense-of-the-Senate is the pending 
amendment. I offered my other amendment on Tongass as well.
  Mr. BYRD. Which amendment is pending?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it is my-sense-of-the-Senate resolution but 
would direct that question to the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the chairman will yield, I neglected to mention that 
Senator McCain is still listed as having one amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is not 
pending. Amendment No. 2410 is the pending amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to expedite this, I proposed the sense-
of-the-Senate first and proposed my Park Service amendment second. I 
would be willing to proceed to whichever amendment the managers prefer.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment which the Senator identified--
--
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment simply requires the 
Forest Service to live by the law of the land with regard to setting 
aside and withdrawing specific areas that are not associated with any 
identification of any endangered species of any kind.
  Mr. BYRD. The other amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My second amendment has to do with the University of 
Alaska and, reimbursement for the Park Service blowing up a mine. It is 
the Stampede Creek amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. On this side, Mr. President, I am ready to accept and 
recommend that the Senate adopt the amendment dealing with the Stampede 
Creek. Is that the amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I concur with the Senator from West 
Virginia. We have no objections to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2410) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________