[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]

 
           INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my 
distinguished colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
for the efforts they have made over my 16 years in the Senate--efforts 
that have significantly improved the quality of life of the people of 
Minnesota.
  Of all the issues that Senate appropriations considers each year, I 
think those addressed in the Interior appropriations bill are among the 
most important to Minnesotans.
  It is this bill that provides the funds for protecting our natural 
resources--our rivers and streams, our forests and prairies, our 
endangered species and game animals. This bill funds the National Park 
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, just to name a few.
  During this, the last Interior appropriations bill of my Senate 
career, I cannot help but recollect all the wonderful things that the 
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations has helped me bring to 
Minnesota.
  Minnesota's nickname, the Land of 10,000 Lakes, does not come close 
to depicting my State's natural resources. The name suggests only 
water--of which we have plenty--but forests actually make up nearly 
one-third of Minnesota's land area. In fact, Minnesota also boasts two 
of the most beautiful national forests in the country--the Superior and 
Chippewa National Forests.
  The 13.6 million acres of commercial forest land generate over $4.4 
billion for the State, making forest products the second largest 
manufacturing industry in Minnesota. And yet, forests are also an 
integral part of the State's outdoor recreation and tourism industry.
  Approximately 1.2 million acres have been set aside for parks, 
refuges, wilderness, and other recreational uses that are so much a 
part of a Minnesotan's way of life. My State has developed a unique 
balance between timber harvesting and the protection of wildlife and 
their habitat. In fact, forest industry professionals--like Jack Rajala 
of Deer River--are among the most environmentally conscious people I 
know.
  In 1992 and 1993, I was instrumental in providing Federal funding for 
eagle nesting ground land acquisition within the Chippewa. As a result, 
the Chippewa today is blessed with a revived and expanded bald eagle 
community. In fact, the Chippewa National Forest is now the home of 
more bald eagles than anywhere else in the 48 contiguous United States.
  Within the Superior lies the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--
hundreds of acres of pristine wilderness that are home to hundreds of 
species of wildlife. Over the past 14 years, I have secured both 
recreational and interpretive funding for the BWCA Wilderness. I know 
that people like Dick Flint, Chuck Dayton, and Kevin Proesholdt have 
expended a lot of time and effort on fine-tuning the balance between 
recreation and preservation within the BWCAW.
  The BWCAW is home to the only thriving population of wolves in the 
lower 48 States. Thus, it is no coincidence that the Wolf Center was 
built in Ely, MN--in the heart of the Superior National Forest--so that 
world renowned experts like Dave Mech of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
can study wolves, and so all Americans can learn the beauty of this 
much misunderstood creature.
  On the western edge of Superior National Forest is one of the Crown 
Jewels of the National Park Service: Voyageurs National Park. Voyageurs 
is a relatively new park--established in 1971--and as a result, much 
money has been needed to bring the park's treasured recreational 
opportunities to the forefront. Superintendent Ben Clary has proven to 
be very committed to the protection and expansion of Voyageurs, and I 
am honored to have had the opportunity to work with him in an effort to 
provide Minnesotans with a first-class park experience.
  Over the years, the committee has provided over $43 million to 
acquire almost 72,000 acres of land for Voyageurs. The Rainy Lake 
visitor center was built using appropriations in the mid-1980's. Plus, 
the committee allocated over $4.5 million for restoration of the Kettle 
Falls Hotel, a historic inn within Voyageurs that still operates as a 
place of rest for thousands of visitors to the park.
  Minnesota is also home to several National Wildlife Refuges. The 
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the largest urban wildlife 
refuge in the United States. The creation of this refuge was begun by 
my predecessor, former Vice President Mondale. I must also applaud 
Elaine Mellot and Mike Bosanko, with Friends of the Minnesota Valley--
together, we were able to make this refuge a reality. Minnesota Valley 
now has a new interpretive center, and over 7,800 acres of land have 
been added to the refuge's protection.
  Thus--in the heart of a major urban area--schoolchildren can see bald 
eagles, endangered plant life, and can otherwise escape from the city. 
It is a true refuge, for humans and animals alike.
  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a marvelous piece of legislation 
which the Senate approved almost 10 years before my election. Over the 
years, I have been strongly committed to ensuring that wild and scenic 
rivers receive adequate funding to protect the scenic views and other 
recreational opportunities associated with the river landscape. 
Sections of both the Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers have since 
been designated as wild and scenic.
  As the State blessed with the headwaters of one of the world's 
greatest waterways, it is imperative that we protect the Mississippi 
River for future generations. In Minnesota, we do this in several ways. 
First, there is the Mississippi Headwaters Board, which is a Federal-
State-local conservation organization. The Headwaters Board ensures 
that the waters from the river's origin to the Twin Cities of 
Minneapolis-St. Paul are preserved in their near-pristine quality.
  Through the large urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the 
Mississippi River is guarded by a new addition to the National Park 
Service--the Mississippi River National Recreation Area. The idea for 
MNRRA rose from the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, a 
group of citizens who assisted in the development of long-range plans 
and funding for park and open space facilities in the Twin Cities 
metropolitan area. Shirley Hunt, who staffed our early efforts on this 
has been, with Chair Peter Gaul, so instrumental in its success.
  The next step was the Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee, 
created by Congress in 1980, to bring together Federal, State, 
regional, and local governments in an effort to enhance recreational 
opportunities in various river corridors across the country. This 
Appropriations Committee recognized the merit behind this sort of 
cooperative effort--and provided funds totalling $214,000 for initial 
studies.
  In 1983, I introduced legislation to authorize Federal-State-local 
matching grants for use in additional river conservation activities. 
This was yet another effort to develop a cooperative system for 
managing not only the Mississippi River, but other rivers throughout 
the country. While this legislation was never approved by Congress, it 
has been implemented on a smaller scale through MNRRA.
  Finally, I sponsored title VII of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act 
in 1988 which created the MNRRA. Encompassing 72 miles of the river 
corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area, MNRRA was 
established to preserve, protect, and enhance the significant resources 
of the Mississippi for future generations. MNRRA fulfills the goals I 
had in mind in the Metropolitan Rivers Corridors Study, by uniting all 
levels of involvement--from the Federal Government to private 
industry--in an effort to manage the many resources provided by the 
Mississippi River.
  The legislation also created the Mississippi River Coordinating 
Commission, a 22-member body appointed to represent local and Federal 
interests in preparing a management plan for the MNRRA. One of the most 
significant aspects of the corridor is its importance to the economy of 
the Twin Cities, of Minnesota, and of the entire Nation. Joanne Kyral, 
superintendent of MNRRA, worked tirelessly to ensure that the final 
plan addressed all river uses--agriculture, navigation, riverside 
property rights, environmental protection, and recreation.
  Thanks to the funding approved by my colleagues, the Park Service and 
the Coordinating Commission recently were able to submit the final 
proposed management plan to Governor Carlson for approval. The final 
plan outlines a management framework that ensures a balanced protection 
of the corridor's economic resources in addition to its natural, 
cultural and recreational resources.
  Downstream of the cities, the river is protected by the Upper 
Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge runs from La 
Crescent, MN, to St. Louis, MO. And, like the river itself, the 
refuge's unique and spectacular resources have been enhanced through a 
new visitor and interpretive center, as well as many acres of land 
acquired over the past 16 years.
  As the chairman and ranking member know so well, the river and the 
refuge are threatened by nonpoint source pollution. Accordingly, the 
committee has wisely provided much needed funding for new land 
management protection activities on lands that border the river and the 
refuge.
  In 1992, the Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was added to the 
National Refuge System, becoming Minnesota's ninth refuge. Located in 
Morrison County, MN, this wetland/prairie complex is home to sand 
prairie and oak savanna--a rare sight in Minnesota.
  And this year, for the first time, both the House and the Senate have 
granted funding for land acquisition in the Crane Meadows. I hope that 
we will be able to provide Crane Meadows with the full $1 million, as 
approved by the Senate.
  Although the mighty Mississippi is the major attraction for outdoor 
enthusiasts, the St. Croix River still stands out as one of the premier 
canoe rivers in the country. In 1965, the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary 
Area Commission was created to protect this river, as well as the 
Mississippi. Now, the St. Croix's unparalleled beauty and tranquility 
are preserved for all time through its designation as a Wild and Scenic 
River. More and more people can now appreciate this hidden treasure due 
to the recently completed visitors center. And--thanks to the foresight 
of my colleagues on this committee--land acquisition for this 220-mile 
protected corridor is now complete.
  Of course, despite all of these often overlooked refuges, forests and 
wilderness areas, Minnesota continues to be proud of its historical, 
cultural, and environmental heritage embodied in the Grand Portage 
National Monument, in Grand Portage, MN. It has been said, Mr. 
President, that if a true and accurate history of the United States 
were to be written, it should start at Grand Portage--a bustling 
crossroads of Native American and European cultures in the 17th 
century. Recognizing the monument's importance, in recent years the 
committee has funded studies for a new visitors center. For this, I 
have Curt Roy to thank. His dedication and commitment have ensured that 
Grand Portage receives the recognition it deserves.
  The administrative/interpretive center would provide orientation 
facilities to help visitors understand the historical significance of 
the Grand Portage. This center will be an integral part of the park 
experience, and should continue to be a funding priority in the future.
  Mr. President, Minnesota has been blessed with wonderful natural 
resources and I have been lucky to serve as its Senator for 16 years. 
However, I cannot help but think of how fortunate this Nation is to 
have such dedicated people managing these resources. I know how hard 
the park ranger works to educate visitors to Voyageurs National Park; I 
know how hard it is for a forest ranger on the ``chip'' to protect the 
forest in the face of budget cuts; I know how hard it is for these 
resource professionals to balance the competing interests; and, Mr. 
President, I know how hard it is for the members of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee to handle the unenviable task of allocating 
scarce dollars among innumerable worthy projects.
  Thus, as I conclude this statement, I want to thank those who have 
helped me over the years to effectively protect and enhance the natural 
resources of Minnesota.
  I thank both Mr. Byrd and Mr. Johnston, as current and former 
chairmen of this important subcommittee, for their commitment to the 
protection of Minnesota's wildlife and habitat.
  I also thank Senator Hatfield, and our former colleague, Senator 
McClure, for all the work they have done to ensure that Minnesota 
received adequate funding to continue its proud heritage of protecting 
its natural resource.
  The next chapter in the history of Minnesota's environment will be 
written by others--and I can tell you that I am immensely proud of the 
small part I played in this proud history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                        statement on amendments

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week, the Senate debated and 
ultimately gave its approval to the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 
1995. The subject of that bill was one that is critically important to 
many farmers and ranchers in my State of California. Unfortunately, 
during this very important debate, the Senate was forced to spend hours 
considering and voting on two amendments offered by the senior Senator 
from North Carolina that were both irrelevant to the bill and, in my 
view, unnecessarily provocative and inherently divisive. In my view, 
there is no place in any Senate debate--indeed, in public discourse of 
any kind--for propositions that appeal to fear and prejudice, as I 
believe the Helms amendments did. I deeply regret that they were 
offered, and that is why I voted against them.


                                the nea

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, coming down to the Senate floor to defend 
the NEA has become a yearly ritual. This is the second time this year 
that I have spoken about the importance of the NEA to my home State of 
Vermont. The last time I spoke was almost a month ago, the day after 
the bill was reported out of committee.
  I talk about my concern over the 5-percent targeted cut to the NEA 
budget in this bill. I talked about the important arts program in 
Vermont that would be hurt if these targeted cuts go through.
  Since that time I have heard from many more Vermonters who are very 
concerned about what the targeted cuts in this bill will do to their 
community arts program. Particularly detrimental to these programs 
would be the 40.5-percent cut to the presenting and commissioning 
program.
  Vermont programs that have received this funding include the Flynn 
Theater in Burlington, the Onion River Arts Council in Montpelier, the 
Catamount Film and Arts Co. in St. Johnsbury, Pentangle in Woodstock, 
and the Crossroads Arts Council in Rutland. Also important to Vermont 
is the Challenge Grant Program which is being cut by 5 percent. The 
Flynn Theater this year received a $250,000 challenge grant. Last year, 
the Vermont Folklife Center in Middlebury received a $280,000 challenge 
grant.
  These programs do so much for their communities. The Catamount Film 
and Arts Co. has earned a national reputation for excellence in arts 
programming and community service. The $5,000 that they receive from 
the NEA enables them to present over 25 live performing arts events 
each year. The Flynn Theater supports ongoing programs with low-income 
school children that help these children develop reading and language 
skills through playwriting and performances. It also supports workshops 
and study guides for teachers that intergrate arts into their 
curriculum. These are just a few examples NEA funds at work in my 
State.
  Yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment that would, in my 
opinion, have had extremely broad implications for the arts in this 
country. I echo the words of my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, 
who so eloquently brought to light what a seemingly innocuous amendment 
regarding restrictions would do to the kinds of arts that the NEA can 
fund.
  The amendment would have disallowed any NEA funds to support any 
activity or work involving human mutilation or invasive bodily 
procedures on human beings or the drawing or letting of blood. As 
Senator Dodd pointed out, the most casual observer of art can recall 
some of the great paintings in religious art over the centuries. 
Representations of the stoning of Mary Magdalene, the decapitation of 
John the Baptist, or the crucifixion of Christ could be interpreted to 
fall under this amendment.
  I understand what this amendment was trying to do. I do not argue 
that some of the artist's work funded by the NEA have been personally 
offensive to me and some of my fellow Vermonters. But I believe that 
this amendment would have done irreparable harm to the NEA and the good 
programs that it supports.
  I strongly support the good work on the NEA and its chairman, Jane 
Alexander. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
assure you that when this bill reaches conference, I will work to fund 
the NEA at the highest level possible.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Tongass 
amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Tongass amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the good Senator be willing, in view what has been 
demonstrated on this side and the other side--would the Senator have it 
within the depths of his heart to withdraw his Tongass amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to accommodate the managers of the bill. 
However, what we are asking for, in view of the action already taken by 
this body--they accepted an amendment by the Senator from Texas that 
dealt with many of the same issues raised in this amendment. What we 
are asking for is simply to say that it is the sense of the Senate that 
the existing law surrounding the designation of areas withdrawn from 
harvesting be followed. Knowing the Senator's friendship and long 
association with the senior Senator from Alaska who has just presented 
the case for what is happening in Alaska, the harm to our people in 
these huge withdrawals is very significant. We are finding more goshawk 
nests each day--and with every new nest the Forest Service draws a big 
circle around it and withdraws further areas. You would think the 
goshawk would be less in danger of extinction because more keep being 
found. We are simply losing productive land through withdrawals that 
are not authorized. There are no Federal mandates for these 
withdrawals, and it is against the law. All we are asking is the sense 
of the Senate that the Forest Service follow the law. I cannot 
understand why anybody would not find that acceptable since these 
species are not endangered.
  Mr. BYRD. So this is the short and the long of it. I take it that the 
Senator has indicated that he does not want to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is an 
attempt being made now by the staffs to reach an agreement on the 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the amendment is offered in its present form, I would 
have to strenuously object to the amendment. I very much respect the 
characterization of the amendment by my good friend from Alaska. I must 
say that I have a different characterization of this sense of the 
Senate resolution. If it is offered in its present form, I would have 
to object and would argue that the Senate not agree to it. I understand 
that the staffs are trying to work out an accommodation. I hope it is 
worked out or that it is withdrawn. If an accommodation is not worked 
out, I would have to object.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I encourage my colleague from Montana 
to identify his objection. Maybe I can address it adequately to give 
him some degree of comfort.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator from West Virginia will yield.
  Mr. President, essentially, this is a sense-of-the-Senate which 
directs the Forest Service to disregard evidence that has become 
available since the forest plan was adopted in 1993, evidence that two 
species are in fact so threatened that they could very well be 
endangered. That is a very different proposition than the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that was adopted, which was earlier offered by the 
Senator from Texas.
  In that case, in the sense of the Senate offered by the Senator from 
Texas, I read the language.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary shall take 
     whatever steps are necessary and allowable under law to 
     minimize adverse impacts while conserving threatened 
     endangered species.

  And so forth.
  If we adopt, on the other hand, the sense of the Senate offered by 
the Senator from Alaska, we would be directing the Forest Service to 
not follow the law; that is, by going ahead with the forest plans even 
though there is now very solid evidence that to do so would violate the 
Endangered Species Act, would violate the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and violate other acts, too.
  Frankly, I think if the sense of the Senate were adopted it would 
greatly increase the probability of lawsuits because of the complexity. 
It pits timber workers against salmon commercial fishermen, and it just 
would be improper for the Forest Service to disregard new evidence that 
if the Forest Service had this present evidence in drawing up the plan 
it would not draw the plan in the way it has. So, basically, it is for 
those reasons.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my colleague uses the terminology 
``evidence.'' Evidence, as we both know, by a dictionary definition has 
certain implications.
  Considering the fact that there is no listing of either of these 
species by the appropriate agencies, it would certainly seem to be a 
premature action by the Forest Service to withdraw these land areas.
  We are both from the West. I do not pretend to know an awful lot 
about the game species in Montana. But in Alaska we clearly allow the 
taking of wolf throughout the State of Alaska under certain 
restrictions by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
  This is a fact. And it is based on good biology. If there were a 
shortage of wolf, obviously the State Department of Fish and Game, with 
advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would encourage the 
Forest Service's actions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not 
taken any action or recommendations in this matter because they, too, 
agree that these species are not designated endangered. There is no 
reason to think they are.
  I encourage my colleagues to recognize the objective behind what the 
senior Senator has said and what I am absolutely  convinced of. There 
is a tremendous movement to simply stop timber harvesting on the 
national forest to the detriment of people's lifestyles and jobs. That 
is the bottom issue here.

  These two species, based on the information we have, do not support 
listing. And it is premature to suggest that there should be any 
restriction on timber harvest as a consequence of wolf or goshawk.
  We allow wolf hunting. The wolves are simply not on the larger 
islands because they do not swim from the small islands to the larger 
islands. As a matter of fact there are more wolves where there is 
timber harvest.
  So as my good friend from the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works--and I know how that committee looks at resource development, 
particularly renewable resource development--should consider the fact 
that these are not endangered species, nor is the Forest Service 
complying with the law in these withdrawals. As a consequence I fail to 
understand the basis for his argument.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another 
question.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we can have a long involved debate on this 
issue. I will be very short about it.
  I held a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee just 
Saturday. We had a hearing on the Endangered Species Act. It was a long 
and involved hearing. It was 8 hours, with 27 or 28 witnesses, open 
mike, and probably anybody under the Sun asked a question and made a 
statement. It was very long and involved.
  It was revolving around reauthorization of the Endangered Species 
Act, which I introduced and I hope this Congress will pass, and I think 
will pass not this year but next year. One of the central tenets of it 
is to prevent listing in the first place.
  One way to prevent listing in the first place is to spend a little 
more time and attention on candidate species or threatened species so 
there is no listing, so we do not then have the problems that occur 
when a species is listed.
  I hope that both Senators from Alaska and all Senators in this body 
will take a long, hard look at that proposed reauthorization, because I 
think it does go a long, long way.
  Let me just cut to the quick here. I ask the Senator. Perhaps he will 
get a chance to look at the proposed modification that his staff and my 
staff worked out. If he were to offer that modification, I would have 
no opposition, no qualms whatsoever, with the amendment and urge him to 
so modify it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana, which has 
timber harvest in this area, what he would do if one of his 
constituents came to him and said: We had a valid contract to cut 
timber or the Forest Service had scheduled a sale, were notified that 
it could not be used until the Forest Service drew a 3- to 10-mile 
circle around every goshawk tree, when the goshawk was not endangered, 
was not threatened, was not listed in any way in an environment impact 
statement that had been prepared. What would the Senator say to his 
constituent who said, ``What can I do with this administrative agency? 
They tell me to forget it. We do not have any way to deal with them.'' 
They then have the rings, the circles. You cannot go inside that ring. 
What does the Senator do?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my first answer to the Senator from Alaska 
is I have now learned more about the situation, so I know more about 
it.
  I tell the Senator this: In my State of Montana I asked timber 
workers, miners, sawmill workers, do they want the grizzly bear to 
become extinct? No. They want to preserve the grizzly bear. I asked if 
they want the salmon to become extinct? No, they do not. They want to 
find a way to save salmon from extinction. Do they want the wolf to 
become extinct? No. They want to find a way to save the wolf.
  What we are trying with the reauthorization of the Endangered Species 
Act, to come up with a much better process where people buy in more 
quickly, communities are consulted much more, States are consulted much 
more, so that States themselves have a much, much larger role in first 
deciding whether a species shall be listed.
  By the way, we are proposing independent peer review so that the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the agencies themselves do not make these 
decisions only. It is peer review.
  Second, by involving the States, for example, the State of Alaska, 
Alaska has a lot more to say in developing recovery plans and what 
habitat should be protected, and what not.
  I cannot speak to the issue that the Senator just raised. I do not 
know enough about it. I know my State.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one more time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am going to do that when the Endangered Species Act 
comes up.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield one more time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will not make a long statement.
  I ask the Senator this. Why does the Senator take his time having 
hearings, trying to suggest laws, trying to get his colleagues to 
understand those laws, and get the Congress and then the President to 
go through the process of making laws if the agency says it does not 
need a law? It can make up its own independent mind. It has control 
over the forests in my State. It can make up its own mind. And it has 
closed off access to an area around the tree which has a bird nest that 
it admits is not endangered, admits it is not threatened. But it just 
has that power.
  Why does the Senator bother coming to the Senate? Why do we bother 
being Members of the legislature if through the audacity of 
administrators they can just say ``We have the basic authority''?
  Did the Senator give anyone in the administrative branch, in the 
executive branch of the United States, the authority to enact a 
regulation which closes part of the lands of the United States without 
complying with some law, a forest planning law, of the United States?
  That is what we are talking about here today. We reached the point of 
boiling in regard to the laws that come out of the Senator's committee 
already, but we do not need them anymore.
  The Forest Service says it does not need the law. Why do we worry 
about passing laws if we have an executive branch that just makes laws, 
and it did not publish them? The current law says you must publish 
intention to have a regulation. You must put it in the Federal 
Register. If I have the people of the Senate conduct the hearing, and 
the ANILCA law, which I read to the Senate this afternoon, says no land 
in excess of 5,000 acres from the State of Alaska shall be withdrawn 
without complying with specific conditions. They say that did not apply 
to them.
  Why does the Senator bother passing laws? Why are we here? That is 
what we are saying. We just want a simple sense-of-the-Senate saying 
for God's sake follow the law.
  I was going to offer an amendment to tell them once more this is the 
law, and put it in the law.
  My colleague at least has a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am 
hopeful the Senate is sensible enough to tell the executive branch to 
follow the law.
  Does the Senator from Montana object to that?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska makes a fairly 
strong point, and I must say a very good point, with respect to the 
problem we now have with the Endangered Species Act. That problem now 
is that there are not sufficient criteria. There are not sufficient 
guidelines. There are not sufficient standards in the Endangered 
Species Act today. As a consequence, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
sometimes other Federal agencies, make decisions which are a bit 
arbitrary, which in many cases are not as soundly based on science as 
they should be, decisions which are based more on bureaucratic edict 
and fiat; decisions which do not include States; decisions which do not 
include local communities; decisions which do not include the views of 
the property owners, because, after all, the Endangered Species Act 
can, and in many cases does, have an effect on property rights.

  It is the central point that the Senator makes, the reason why I have 
suggested we reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, which I think will 
dramatically improve the act and which, as a consequence, there will be 
much more confidence in the operation of the act, both in the 
environmental community and from the development community.
  I do not want to give any long argument here. Other Senators have 
other business they want to conduct.
  But the Senator from Alaska says he does not see anything wrong with 
following the law. I must say that is part of the problem here. There 
is the National Environment Policy Act. There is the Endangered Species 
Act. There are other laws, albeit environmental laws, which this sense 
of the Senate says should not be adhered to, should not be paid 
attention to.
  And, basically, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution says the Tongass 
plan in 1993 is it, period; irrespective of the other environmental 
statutes which also have to be followed.
  And I say, therefore, we should follow the law. Unfortunately, there 
is a little confusion as to which laws we are talking about.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me pick up on one point made by the 
Senator from Montana that suggests we are asking for something that 
would obfuscate, if you will, vitiate the existing law that we live 
under and that is ANILCA.
  As Senator Stevens indicated, these species have not been endangered. 
There is no identification of endangering. The Forest Service simply 
made the withdrawal.
  The inconsistency is, the more we find of the species, the larger the 
withdrawals, which clearly does not make sense, because they are 
becoming less threatened the more you find. But nobody has found that 
they are even threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not 
indicated that they are threatened.
  You know, I could not help but notice the sensitivity to something I 
feel very sensitive about, and that is the issue of dividing Alaskans.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Montana mentioned the loggers and the 
fishermen. I would advise the Senator from Montana that we know 
something about fish. That is why everybody wants our fish. We had 
record runs the last 7 of the last 11 years--193 million fish last 
year, in spite of the Prince William Sound disaster.
  If the rest of the country would follow some of the applications of 
renewable resource management like we have in the State of Alaska, you 
would not have the endangered species on the Snake River. What are you 
doing about that? Virtually nothing, because you want to have it both 
ways. You want to have cheap power, you want to have an agricultural 
industry, and you want to have fish. But you have hydroelectric dams 
that are taking care of your fish.
  We are increasing our fishery resources through good biology. Our 
anadromous fish are recurring more and more every year.
  But what you want to do is use arguments on fisheries to suggest that 
we cannot manage our renewable timber resources, and it just simply 
does not fly. There is no evidence to suggest that any endangered 
species exists currently in southeastern Alaska.
  If you want to get into a debate here, it would be very interesting 
to go back to the spotted owl, which they now acknowledge exists in 
abundance in northern California and you can raise them in captivity 
and they will simply go to whatever growth timber is available. That 
was a hoax that was pulled by this administration on the American 
people and the people of the Pacific Northwest at the detriment of 
about 60,000 jobs, I hope they do not forget it.
  Mr. President, if there is no further discussion, I am pleased to say 
that staffs have reached----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a little further discussion.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Excuse me.
  I was going to send a modification to the desk.
  Mr. BYRD. Go ahead.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not want to interrupt that. I do have one comment 
to make.
  Mr. BYRD. Then when the senior Senator gets the floor, if he would 
yield to me briefly.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modified amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2409), as modified, reads 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 
     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;
       (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 the public participation provisions of Section 
     6(d) and other sections of the National Forest Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)).

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe that the amendment has been accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. The amendment has been modified.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Has been modified; and I believe it has been accepted.
  Mr. BYRD. No, it has not been accepted.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator from Alaska yield to me 
briefly?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with the concurrence of Mr. Nickles, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments listed under the names of 
Senators Burns, Brown, and Danforth be stricken from the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I told my good friend from Montana that I 
would not ask him to yield again, but I do want to make a statement 
about the policies that he was commenting on.
  I was one of the original cosponsors of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, along with the distinguished Senator from Washington, 
Senator Jackson. That act specifically says, if there is a significant 
official act, its environmental consequences must be examined first. 
That, I would assume, would cover an action taken by a member of the 
executive branch in dereliction of two specific statutes of the United 
States, an act which is not specifically authorized by any other law, 
including the environmental laws the Senator from Montana has 
mentioned, the Endangered Species Act or NEPA. No NEPA study was made 
of the announcement of the goshawk circles or the wolf habitat zone. 
They were arbitrary executive actions without any NEPA review at all. 
Even PacFish got a NEPA review.
  We support NEPA review. As a matter of fact, our law specifically 
requires NEPA review before a contact can be let to cut timber in 
Alaska. That applies in the rest of the United States and under the 
Tongass Land Management plan. That plan was not complied with, the 
ANILCA law was not complied with, the Tongass Timber Reform Act was not 
complied with. And yet we have spokesmen coming in for the extreme 
environmental organizations saying, ``Look what those Alaskans are 
trying to do again.''
  All we are trying to do is say, ``Live up to the law.''
  I do not understand the position of the Senator from Montana that 
somehow or other the actions taken by these administrative officials 
were taken in compliance with the law.
  And again, I would not ask him, but I would assert to him that he has 
no law he can cite that would authorize a member of the Forest Service 
to issue an edict closing lands in my State to harvest timber under 
valid contract and scheduled timber sales unless it is done in 
compliance with the law. I do not know of any law that authorizes that. 
I know of two specific laws that prohibit it. And NEPA does not 
authorize this until NEPA has been complied with.
  Now I believe it is time for us, particularly those of us from the 
West, to listen, to listen to what is going on. This administration has 
within it groups of people who want to stop development on public 
lands. This is a prime example of what is going on in the West today. 
Those actions were announced in the Tongass forest, just announced. 
They were not published, as required by law. They were not studied, as 
required by law. The other side of the debate was never aired to the 
public. They were not submitted to Congress, as required by law. And no 
NEPA action was taken before those actions were announced.
  Now, I say to the Senate and the Congress as a whole, particularly 
those of us from the West, you better wake up, because you are going to 
be coming in with these problems too. Those policies, if they are 
pursued in Alaska and succeed, they will be followed in the national 
forests of the rest of the United States.
  I believe we are here to pass laws that will be observed by the 
executive branch. As a matter of fact, if we were in the majority and I 
was the chairman of a committee, those people would be before this 
committee and be under oath and be asked to explain why they were 
taking actions that were not permitted by law in any State of the 
Union.
  Until we find some way in the Senate to enforce these laws, to tell 
people they must abide by them--they do not believe in them; by 
definition they do not believe in them--but they are the laws. If they 
want to change the practices of the Forest Service, they should comply 
with the law.
  I will tell this to the Senator from Montana, Mr. President: The 
National Environmental Policy Act will not be amended, but the 
Endangered Species Act will be amended to assure that this will not 
happen, or it will not pass while I am here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to accept the 
modification by the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I urge the 
Senate to agree to this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am prepared to recommend the adoption of 
the amendment by Mr. Murkowski, as modified.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Montana, 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for 
addressing the Tongass National Forest issue. In the past 5 years, this 
forest has received more congressional attention than any other forest 
in the National Forest System.
  It is important to ensure that the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act are 
applied fairly to all public lands. The modified sense of the Senate 
amendment reemphasizes the public participation components of these 
laws and guarantees that these important statutes still guide public 
land management.
  The Senator from Montana is a true leader on environmental issues. 
The Senate, the people of Montana, and the country are lucky to have 
such a vigilant public servant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2409), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2411

  (Purpose: To require the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to 
 submit a report to Congress concerning the Shiprock Campus of Navajo 
                           Community College)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2411.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 end of title III, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 3  . (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary for 
     Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report on measures necessary 
     to address problems concerning the physical structure of 
     Navajo Community College in Shiprock, New Mexico consistent 
     with the responsibilities for the facility.
       Nothing in this amendment is intended to require a change 
     in priority for funding projects by the Department.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include a detailed list of the resources 
     that are required to alleviate the health and safety hazards 
     that have resulted from the poor condition of the structure 
     described in such subsection.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I learned that the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs Safety Management Office had just issued a 
building maintenance report recommending the immediate closure of the 
Navajo Community College Shiprock campus building. The college's 
Shiprock campus consists of this one building. Therefore, the closure 
of this building is the closure of the school.
  I have known for a long time about the deplorable conditions at NCC's 
Shiprock facility because on several occasions I have been visited by 
the president and faculty of that school seeking help in repairing and 
renovating their facilities. I have responded to those requests for 
help by seeking funding for construction under the Tribal College Act. 
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has failed for several years to seek 
funding for construction under that act and the money has never been 
appropriated.
  Unfortunately we have now come to this: a school enrolling over 400 
young native Americans--many of whom have no other alternative for 
post-secondary education--will lose their school. This will leave the 
Shiprock area without a community college, will deprive at least 87 
people of their livelihoods and will devastate the educational plans of 
many deserving students.
  The safety problems and building deficiencies which the BIA has 
catalogued are not trivial--the college has been talking about them for 
a long time and trying to get help for a long time. However, I 
understand from the college that the work which the BIA has indicated 
must be done contains many duplicative listings and accordingly the 
cost to bring this school up to minimum standards may be considerably 
less than stated in the report.
  Furthermore, I am advised that the cost of repair may well be less 
than the cost of demolition. It just does not seem to make sense to 
demolish a school when it could be kept open for the same sum.
  My amendment requires the Bureau of Indian Affairs to report to the 
Congress within 30 days the measures which the Assistant Secretary 
intends to take concerning the physical structure of the building and a 
list of the resources that are required to alleviate the health and 
safety hazards that have resulted from the poor condition of that 
structure.
  I understand that the college has many questions about the inspection 
report and the estimate of repair which the BIA has produced. I myself 
have many questions about the situation which I hope can be answered 
through this report.
  I am hopeful that some way can be found to keep this school open. 
This report will be an important first step in that process. The school 
year is near commencing and I think it is very important that we go 
ahead with this amendment at this time.
  I, also, of course, commend my colleague, Senator Domenici, who is a 
cosponsor of this amendment with me. I know both of us urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment that 
Senator Bingaman has just called up. I am a cosponsor. It is really an 
unbelievable situation. We just have to get some answers. We cannot 
close this campus, which is the principal place to educate many, many 
Navajo Indians. We just cannot let this happen.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs Shiprock Agency Safety Management Office 
has notified the Shiprock campus of Navajo Community College that it 
must immediately vacate building 1228 which houses the entire Shiprock 
campus program. This decision calls for at least 50 percent of repairs 
being complete before the building will be allowed to be reopened. 
Estimated repair costs are $8.4 million.
  This decision can be appealed to the BIA area office in Window Rock 
and the central office here in Washington, DC. The fall program might 
not be available to some 400 students unless we are able to find a way 
to ensure that the doors will be open.
  Our amendment calls for a report to pinpoint what is needed to keep 
the Navajo Community College Shiprock campus open and serving its 
students. The fact that the facility has been able to reach this state 
of deterioration is a shame that should be rectified.
  I am a bit puzzled by the lack of coordination within the 
Administration. It strikes me as very strange that the BIA can mandate 
the spending of money to repair a building while no requests for funds 
to address the problem have been made. I hope the report clarifies the 
internal budget process that allows this kind of emergency to happen. 
The President's budget had no request of any kind to address the 
problems at the Shiprock campus.
  I urge my colleagues to support our effort to clarify this matter at 
the earliest possible date.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment offered by 
Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. We have no objection to that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment has been reviewed on this side 
of the aisle. We have no objection and are prepared to recommend its 
adoption by the Senate.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2411) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Indian Health

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Indians supported a President in the 
last election based on the false perception that he would respond 
generously to their needs. Instead, American Indians are seeing a 
President who holds out the promise of a better health care system, 
while dismantling the substandard one they already have in place. This 
is hardly what the Indian people had in mind when they voted in 
overwhelming numbers for this President.
  By treaty, law, court decisions, and policy declarations, the U.S. 
Government has forged a special relationship with America's poorest 
minority group. While supporting and encouraging self-determination, 
the U.S. Government remains directly responsible for providing health 
care and education for American Indians.
  While there are many other areas of responsibility like housing, 
economic development, law enforcement, and natural resource protection, 
I would like to focus my colleagues' attention on the two key Federal 
responsibilities of health care and education for American Indians.
  Few Members of the Congress seem to be aware of the fact that the 
President's budget for fiscal year 1995 proposed a reduction of $247 
million or 12.7 percent from the 1994 Indian Health Service [IHS] 
budget. Fortunately, Chairman Byrd, Chairman Inouye of the Indian 
Committee, and other Senators and Representatives have worked 
diligently to successfully overturn this disastrous recommendation.
  The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, facing the same 
tight budget situation as the President faces, did more than replenish 
these vital funds. The subcommittee has recommended a total IHS Fiscal 
Year 1995 budget of $1.969 billion, which is $26 million more than last 
year's budget.
  The original proposed budget effectively barred the hiring of new 
doctors, nurses, and other key hospital staff even though new hospitals 
and clinics are planned to open this fall. Other staff reductions were 
threatening to reduce critical medical services nationwide. The 
administration, in an unusual amendment to its original budget 
submission, restored half of the reduction, or about $125 million. This 
was done after many objections were heard about the truly negative 
impact on Indian people of the original IHS budget for 1995.
  In my own home State of New Mexico, a national priority 75-bed 
hospital in Shiprock will be competed this fall at a cost of about $55 
million. Under the President's plan, fully half of the new facility 
would have been left idle despite the well-documented need for 
immediate increases in medical service delivery. The Shiprock area is 
one of the fastest growing Indian areas in America.
  Thanks to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, $9.4 
million will be set aside for medical and supportive staff at the 
Shiprock hospital, known as the Northern Navajo Medical Center. The 
Tohatchi Clinic is also included in congressional restoration action at 
a level of $3.4 million. This facility faced similar problems of idle 
capital investments in an area of high medical needs.

  The IHS is the Federal agency directly responsible for providing 
health care to Indians through a system of hospitals, clinics, and 
centers. The IHS delivers babies, fixes broken limbs, provides surgery, 
treats cancer, gives dental care, and tackles mental illnesses.
  In addition, the IHS provides necessary sanitation facilities for 
Indian housing and community needs. Unfortunately the sanitation 
facilities construction budget is sadly inadequate. The President 
originally requested no funds for poor and failing systems. Often, 
there is no system at all.
  In New Mexico alone, every pueblo and tribe has at least one request 
in to the IHS for solid waste improvements, lagoon expansion, well 
construction or repair, pumps, meters, housing support, sewer system 
improvements, or facility replacements. This list is four pages long in 
single line summaries. To raise all Indian tribes and communities to a 
level I sanitation deficiency classification would cost $1.7 billion in 
the Albuquerque area alone.
  After reconsidering his initial mistake, the President increased his 
original budget for sanitation facilities from zero to $42.5 million. 
Fortunately, the Senate subcommittee has increased this amount to $85.1 
million. Even with this increase, I remain disheartened that we will be 
unable to help New Mexico Pueblos like Zuni and Acoma tap new sources 
of water. At Zuni Pueblo, the water has a rotten egg smell, ruins water 
heaters, and cannot be used in many hospital applications. This 
Pueblo's request for $13 million has gone unanswered for 5 years. I am 
still seeking a multiyear approach with possible cost sharing as a 
funding device.
  On the education side of the ledger, it is a sad fact that Indian 
children have more impediments to completing a good education than all 
other Americans. Their dropout rate is the highest in the nation at 36 
percent, compared to 28 percent for Hispanics and 22 percent for 
blacks.
  According to ``Indian Nations At Risk'' (1991), prepared by the U.S. 
Department of Education, poor academic achievement is the norm for 60 
percent of native American students. Among all ethnic groups, Indian 
children have the highest percentage--32.3 percent--of those students 
performing below basic skill levels in mathematics. Indian students 
have the smallest percentage of those performing at the advanced 
level--4.8 percent. In short, there is a greater percentage of Indians 
performing at the poorest levels than any other group and a smaller 
portion at the advanced levels than any other student group in 
mathematics.
  By way of comparison, 15.5 percent of White students perform at the 
below basic skill level in mathematics, half the Indian level, and 22.4 
percent of white students are in the advanced category--more than four 
times the Indian achievers. Asian students perform better, Hispanics 
and blacks are below whites but above Indians in achievement in 
mathematics. Indians remain at the bottom in this particular category 
and others as well.
  The education problem for American Indians is well analyzed in 
``Indian Nations At Risk'' and was addressed by the White House 
Conference on Indian Education in 1992.
  The administration appears to be dabbling around the edges of the 
current and clearly inadequate educational system for Indians. I must 
give the administration credit for the proposed increases in the Indian 
School Equalization Program [ISEP]--$12.4 million was added by the 
President. This is a needed and helpful, but slight increase in a total 
ISEP effort of $261.8 million. At this level, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs [BIA] estimates that payments to schools with Indian students 
will increase to $2,992 per weighted student unit from the current 
level of $2,874. With such factors as boarding schools and special 
education needs factored in, actual per-Indian student expenditures 
average over $4,000 under this account.

  A major weakness of the BIA education program for Indian students is 
the program for facilities management and construction. I have just 
received the sad word that the Shiprock Campus of Navajo Community 
College is being closed because the buildings have been condemned.
  Some 450 students will be without classrooms this fall unless we are 
able to resolve this problem in the very near future. This condemnation 
highlights the type of problem generally pervading BIA school 
facilities.
  I am also very familiar with a BIA elementary school on the Mescalero 
Apache reservation in New Mexico that was burned to the ground almost 5 
years ago. This school remains a temporary school in a community center 
as very little is done to build the needed new school. There are about 
600 elementary school students on the Mescalero Apache reservation.
  Estimates are that hundreds of millions of dollars are necessary to 
build every needed school and bring every existing Indian school up to 
standard. In the face of this $550 million problem, the President 
requested $43 million, primarily for repair and improvement of existing 
facilities. There are no funds requested by the administration for new 
school construction or for the planning and design of any new BIA 
schools. Last year, only $13 million was requested for planning and 
design of new school construction.
  Mr. President, I do not pretend to have the answers for every problem 
in Indian health care or education. As a Senator from New Mexico, I am 
very familiar with the wonderful Indian people who live in pueblos and 
on reservations. I know their joys and their problems. There are 19 
pueblos, 2 Apache tribes, and about a third of the Navajo Nation in New 
Mexico.
  Self determination and economic independence are certainly goals to 
be admired and pursued for the Indian people of New Mexico and this 
Nation. In the meantime, we cannot shirk our Government's treaties, 
laws, court cases, and policy declarations in favor of the Indian 
people of America. The Interior appropriations bill before us makes 
important improvements in this area, but much remains to be done. We 
should not be dealing in a new round of false promises where specific 
and clear commitments are most necessary.
  I look forward to a better record on the part of the administration 
when the 1996 budget is submitted. In the interim, I will work for 
better budget decisions to help Indian people reach the quality of 
health care enjoyed by most Americans. I will also be involved to see 
that Indian education programs are more responsive to the realities of 
life on the reservation. We certainly need more innovation to help 
Indian students up the educational ladder.
  If we need change in America, we need it in Indian health and 
education programs. It is particularly important that we do not deliver 
politics as usual to the first Americans.


                           amendment no. 2412

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Southwestern Fisheries Technology 
                                Center)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2412.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 10, line 20, strike ``$45,525,000'' and insert 
     ``$49,848,000''.
       On page 2, line 11, strike ``$599,230,000'' and insert 
     ``$598,480,000''.
       On page 2, line 25, strike ``$599,230,000'' and insert 
     ``$598,480,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 1995 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. The 
amendment I am proposing will provide funding for the continued 
construction of the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center through 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. My distinguished colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Bingaman, joins me as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center consists of the Dexter 
National Fish Hatchery and the Mora Fish Hatchery in New Mexico.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service will have obligated all available 
appropriations for the center by the end of this fiscal year, 1994. 
Further construction on the project will not proceed in fiscal year 
1995 without the funds included in this amendment.
  The amendment provides $4,323,000 to fund phase 2 of the Southwestern 
Fisheries Technology Center. This funding is needed to construct a 
combined administration and dry laboratory facility and a new storage 
and maintenance building at Dexter.
  The Dexter National Fish Hatchery is over 60 years old. It was 
established in 1931 to meet the demands for warmwater game fish in the 
Southwest.
  Since 1978, the Dexter Fish Hatchery has focused its work on 
endangered species of fish. Today, Dexter is the only facility in the 
Nation dedicated exclusively to holding, studying, culturing, and 
distributing endangered fish for restocking in waters where they 
occurred naturally. Dexter currently is working on 13 endangered and 3 
threatened fish species.
  In fiscal year 1992, Congress began the task of rehabilitating the 
60-year-old Dexter facilities. With phase 1 funding, a new production 
facility is being constructed.
  To build the production facility, the current administration, wet 
laboratory, and storage buildings at Dexter had to be demolished. A 54-
year-old residence is currently being used as temporary space while the 
new production facility is being constructed.
  Phase 2 of the Dexter project to build a new administration building, 
wet laboratory, and storage buildings is now critical, and these funds 
are needed, and can be expended, in fiscal year 1995.
  Additional funding is needed for the Mora Hatchery to equip and 
outfit the new production building, which is to be constructed with 
Phase 1 funding.
  Without the Mora funds, the Mora Technology Center cannot initiate 
operations to begin native, threatened, and endangered fish production 
and technology development.
  Mr. President, the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center is a 
unique part of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It will be the only 
center exclusively dedicated to the breeding and stocking of endangered 
fish, as the Dexter Center is now. The Dexter hatchery currently holds 
13 endangered and 3 threatened species of fish, which are being 
propagated for reintroduction into native habitat as part of endangered 
species recovery plans.
  Adding $4,323,000 to the bill will significantly advance phase 2 of 
this center, and will complete the most significant parts of these 
facilities. The adoption of the amendment will allow both the Dexter 
and Mora facilities to be up and operating to support the requirements 
of the Fish and Wildlife Service, especially those related to 
endangered and threatened species of fish.
  The full amount of the budget authority associated with this 
amendment--$4,323,000--can be accommodated within the subcommittee's 
existing 602(b) allocation.
  The fiscal year 1995 outlays associated with this amendment are 
$648,525 under the Fish and Wildlife Service construction account in 
fiscal year 1995. These outlays are fully offset in the amendment.
  I sincerely appreciate the assistance of the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee in the consideration of this amendment. 
I thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma for his review of this 
amendment.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment is offset by reducing funding in the 
bill for two New Mexico items funded in the bill through the Bureau of 
Land Management.
  The reduction in BLM will achieve the $648,525 in outlays needed to 
fund the Southwestern Fisheries Technology Center.
  Mr. President, I understand both Senator Byrd for the majority and 
Senator Nickles for the minority have no objection to this amendment.
  I am pleased Senator Bingaman is my cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. If I could briefly comment, I compliment my colleague 
for the amendment. I cosponsor it and urge its adoption. I do believe 
we have found acceptable offsets which will allow this funding to be 
included in the bill. These are very important projects for our State, 
both for Mora County and north Chavez County.
  We very much believe we need to go forward with the completion of 
these projects. This is important language, important funding to keep 
in the bill so that completion can occur.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friends and 
colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, particularly Senator 
Domenici, because he has been working for several days now trying to 
find some offsets that were suitable and acceptable. He has done both 
and is funding a project I know he believes is very, very important to 
his State and to our country. I compliment him as well for finding some 
offsets within his State.
  We have no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the two Senators from New 
Mexico on the amendment. They have worked long and worked hard on it.
  I am prepared to accept the amendment and recommend that the Senate 
adopt it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I just extend my appreciation to 
Senator Bingaman for his work on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2412) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire from the 
distinguished chairman and the distinguished comanager from Oklahoma as 
to what advice they might give the Senate with respect to what is 
anticipated for the remainder of the evening on this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am happy to state to the distinguished 
Senator that it is my belief that within 30 minutes, we will be voting 
on final passage of the bill.
  That is the outlook at this point. I may be mistaken. There is one 
other possible amendment----
  Mr. WARNER. I interpret that the time could be short.
  Mr. BYRD. We have several colloquies. I might just say, I think it is 
a pretty good bet at an outside we would be voting within 30 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will just notify the chairman of the 
committee, we have been working this side of the aisle, because we had 
a lot of amendments that were pending. I think we have had great 
cooperation from our Members. To my knowledge, we only have one 
amendment that is outstanding that may require a vote. I think the 
remainder of the amendments have either been withdrawn or we have been 
able to work out colloquies to the Member's satisfaction.
  That one amendment that is outstanding that may require a vote is 
Senator McCain's amendment. I understand that the chairman of the 
committee is not willing to accept that, and so I will inform Senator 
McCain and see if we cannot get that amendment withdrawn or voted on 
very shortly. So we should notify all Members that final passage may 
well occur pretty quickly.
  I appreciate the chairman's leadership and cooperation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. 
Before the Senator from Virginia leaves, I understand now that, based 
on some words that I just received, it probably will be 7 o'clock on 
final passage.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. 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. BYRD. Mr. 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. Mr. President, it appears, from checking the list on both 
sides of the aisle, that action has now been reduced to various and 
sundry colloquies, and if my colleague, Mr. Nickles, agrees with me, I 
will ask unanimous consent that these several colloquies be entered 
into the Record. I very shortly will enumerate them.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have contacted all the Members who had 
amendments that were on the list. Several have withdrawn those 
amendments. Others we have been able to satisfy with a colloquy. And 
some of the amendments we have accepted. So I am not aware of any 
additional amendments from our side on the bill, and so I think we are 
done.
  I also might mention to the chairman there is no request on this side 
for a rollcall vote on final passage. It would be my hope that we could 
pass the bill by voice vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am advised on this side of the aisle that 
there are no further amendments. I would share the desire of the 
Senator that there be no rollcall vote on final passage. There will be 
a rollcall vote on the conference report, however, when it is brought 
back to the Senate.
  Now, the list of colloquies, Mr. President: Bingaman and Byrd; Bond 
and Byrd; Bumpers and Byrd; Campbell and Byrd; five colloquies by 
Craig, Byrd, and Nickles; a colloquy by Danforth, Byrd, and Nickles; 
one by Daschle and Byrd; Dole and Byrd; Dorgan and Byrd; Faircloth, 
Byrd, and Nickles; Hatfield and Byrd; Inouye and Byrd; Johnston, Akaka, 
Byrd, and Nickles; two colloquies by Johnston and Byrd; one colloquy 
between Kennedy and Byrd; one colloquy among Leahy, Lugar, Byrd, and 
Nickles; one involving Leahy, Lieberman, Byrd, and Nickles; one 
involving Mathews, Byrd, and Nickles; one involving Metzenbaum, Byrd, 
and Nickles; one involving Moynihan, D'Amato, and Byrd; one between 
Murray and Byrd; another one between Murray and Byrd; one involving 
Simpson, Byrd, and Nickles; one involving Wallop, Byrd, and Nickles; 
one involving Wallop and Byrd; one involving Wellstone and Byrd; one 
involving Coverdell, Nunn, Byrd, and Nickles.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned 
colloquies, with the exception of the last one, be included in the 
Record as though read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  funding provided by the u.s. geological survey through the federal/
                    state cooperative water program

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to engage the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a colloquy.
  Mr. BYRD. I am agreeable to engaging in a colloquy with the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Water is the lifeblood of the West, as you know, and we 
are largely dependent on underground bodies of water to serve domestic, 
commercial, and industrial uses. As the West urbanizes and 
industrializes, the demands placed on our aquifers grow ever greater. 
The citizens of Albuquerque and the surrounding communities north of 
the city are growing increasingly concerned that the aquifer is being 
depleted at a faster rate than it is recharging. The long term 
implications of a net negative drawdown of the aquifer could spell 
disaster for these communities.
  The U.S. Geological Survey, in conjunction with appropriate non-
Federal entities, could undertake activities such as drilling 
monitoring wells that would provide much needed information on aquifer 
levels. I understand that the Federal/State Cooperative Water Program 
is a highly competitive program for which proposals much be submitted. 
I ask the Chairman whether we can expect that scientific and technical 
assistance for hydrologic studies could be provided by the USGS, 
through the Federal/State Cooperative Water Program, if a proposal is 
submitted by the State or local government(s) as a priority need?
  Mr. BYRD. That is correct. Costs associated with this study could be 
shared equally by the USGS and a non-Federal cooperating agency, if a 
proposal is submitted by a local or State government as a priority 
need.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.


                         rolla research center

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations with regard 
to the terms and conditions of the Bureau of Mines' consolidation and 
closure plans as they relate to the Rolla Research Center in Rolla, MO.
  As the chairman knows, I am deeply troubled about the impact the 
administration's plan will have on Missouri's mining industry, the 
ongoing environmental cleanup effort, as well as the impact on the 
University of Missouri-Rolla, the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources, and others. I remain strongly opposed to the 
administration's plan and the process by which the decisions were 
reached.
  Be that as it may, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman 
who has worked under very difficult budgetary constraints to supply an 
additional $3 million to provide partial funding to continue reduced 
operations of the Rolla, MO, and Tuscaloosa, AL, research centers and 
the Alaska field operations, all of which were scheduled for immediate 
closure under the Bureau's consolidation plan.
  As we move into fiscal year 1995, I ask the distinguished chairman, 
what is the intent of the committee regarding transition of the Rolla 
Research Center?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, in fiscal year 1995, it is the intent of the committee 
that the Bureau provide adequate funding to maintain a necessary staff 
approximating 25 FTE's at the Rolla Center which should allow a 
successful collocation with the University of Missouri-Rolla to 
preserve their capacity to conduct environmental remediation research.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that until such 
time that the property is transferred to the University of Missouri-
Rolla, the Bureau of Mines should preserve the personnel necessary to 
operate the core equipment base and that all facilities needed to 
accomplish the continuing research will be kept at the Rolla Center and 
that these facilities will include all installed equipment such as 
benches, hoods, phones, and computer systems as well as all analytical 
instrumentation and metal processing equipment needed for planned 
environmental research, especially those devices deemed to be the core 
equipment base?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is the understanding of the committee.
  Mr. BOND. Is it correct the committee has made this recommendation in 
part, because of the Rolla Centers' demonstrated skill and strategic 
location for major metal processing and remediation operations, in 
part, to assist the Twin Cities Center in its efforts toward 
remediation, in part, to prevent the local expertise from being lost, 
and in part, to avoid the added costs and local economic trauma of a 
total shutdown?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Missouri is correct.
  Mr. BOND. Finally, as this transition proceeds, I will continue to 
work with the chairman to monitor, evaluate, and, if necessary, to 
consider appropriate modifications should the Bureau's implementation 
prove unworkable or unwise. Will the chairman assist me in this effort?
  Mr. BYRD. As always, I will be happy to work with the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his assistance.


                       energy efficiency programs

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. As my colleague knows, I have 
long supported State programs which promote the use of energy efficient 
and renewable energy technologies. In fact, I cosponsored the 
legislation which authorized many of these programs, including the 
State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional Conservation 
Program--also known as schools and hospitals--and, the Low Income 
Weatherization Program. While I serve on the subcommittee and 
understand the funding limitations we operate under, I am very 
concerned by the committee's proposed reductions from the President's 
requests for energy efficiency programs in the Interior bill. The 
President proposed an increase of $288 million in fiscal year 1995 to 
implement the Energy Policy Act of 1992, to fund various new 
initiatives and expand others, and to implement the voluntary programs 
contained in the climate change action plan, many of which are based on 
the Energy Policy Act. The House provided an increase of $134 million 
for these accounts, but the Senate committee was only able to provide 
an increase of $53 million for this important area.
  I was a Member of this body in the 1970's when the State programs 
were originally authorized. In the fiscal year 1979 appropriations 
bill, total funding for the State Energy Conservation Program, the 
Institutional Conservation Program and the Low Income Weatherization 
Program was $558 million. Accounting for inflation, to maintain these 
programs at the fiscal year 1979 level, we would need to provide them 
with over $1 billion. This bill will provide only $264.4 million.
  These programs help create good jobs in our economy and leverage 
large amounts of non-Federal dollars. For example, a recent survey 
showed that Federal funds flowing through the State Energy Conservation 
Program leverage $17 to $25 in non-Federal funds for every Federal 
dollar invested.
  The Schools and Hospitals Program cost-shares the installation of 
energy efficiency measures in qualified buildings, reducing medical 
costs and permitting more money to go directly to education of our 
children. The State Energy Conservation Program delivers energy 
services to every sector of our economy, including the small business 
community in which I have a special interest, not to mention our 
homeowners.
  In light of the important national goals these programs promote, 
especially the State grant programs, I believe the House-passed funding 
levels are preferable to what we have been able to do.
  I wish to ask my distinguished colleague whether, in light of the 
importance of these programs, he could work toward restoring the 
funding in these programs to the House-passed levels during the 
conference which will follow today's floor action?
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate my colleague's strong support for these 
programs, and I will consider the concerns of the Senior Senator from 
Arkansas for the energy conservation programs.


                          u.s. bureau of mines

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
West Virginia, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to 
yield to me for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy on the issue of 
downsizing at the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I know the chairman has worked diligently to enact the 
principles of the National Performance Review by downsizing our Federal 
Government, and I commend him for his work thus far. I am sure he can 
understand my concern about the Bureau of Mines downsizing plan, as it 
greatly affects the mining industry, which is very important to my 
State of Colorado.
  As I understand it, the focus of the reinventing government proposal 
is to cut unnecessary programs and employees from the Federal 
Government. Understandably, the Bureau of Mines does much of its 
research in the States, and I agree that the Bureau's plans to downsize 
must include some cuts in the field. Still, I believe that the 
Washington, DC office of the Bureau should share an equal burden of 
cuts in employees, particularly because there will be a need for less 
oversight if there are fewer employees in the field.
  According to the information provided to me by the Bureau of Mines, 
the field offices will be sharing a greater burden of cuts than the 
Washington, DC office in fiscal year 1995. My office has been in 
continual contact with the Bureau of Mines and we have been told that 
most, if not all of those 145 positions listed as ``unallocated'' will 
be designated to the field. Assigning these 145 positions to the field 
would equal the burden of cuts. Would the distinguished chairman agree 
with me that with respect to the Bureau of Mines, that the Washington 
DC, staff should be reduced in sync with the field? And further, is it 
also the Senator's understanding that most, if not all of the 145 
unallocated positions will be designated to the field?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I believe the Senator from Colorado makes a valid 
point. This administration has stressed the need for each agency to 
examine thoroughly its functions and cut wasteful spending. While the 
Bureau of Mines has done this, I agree with you that the Washington 
office of the Bureau should not grow as employees in the field are cut, 
and as the Senator says, the Washington office should share an ``equal 
burden'' of the affects from downsizing. The Washington office should 
bear its fair share of cuts consistent with the programmatic 
realignment which is to shift the center of focus of Bureau operations 
away from Washington, DC and to the field. To answer his second 
question, yes, the Bureau has assured me that most if not all of those 
145 employees listed in the Bureau's numbers as unallocated will be 
assigned to the field.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the chairman. I would now like to discuss the 
issue of reimbursable employees. The Bureau of Mines has informed me 
that of the 90 full time employees [FTEs] that are scheduled to be cut 
in the Denver field offices in fiscal year 1995, the Bureau expects 
approximately 40 to 45 employees will be funded by reimbursable 
agreements. Is that the distinguished chairman's understanding?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Bureau of Mines informs me that of the 90 FTEs 
slated for cuts this fiscal year from the Denver field offices, they 
expect 40 to 45 FTEs will be funded under reimbursable agreements.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. According to the budget numbers provided to me by the 
Bureau of Mines, the Washington, DC office will get an increase in 
funds of more than $1 million in fiscal year 1995 to a total of more 
than $64 million. This increase in funds occurs at the same time that 
the Bureau is cutting and even closing several field offices. The 
Bureau has assured me, however, that of the $64 million allocated to 
the Washington, DC office, nearly $8 million will be allocated to the 
field, including; $3 million for health and safety, $3.8 million to 
environmental technology and $450,000 to Denver for the personnel 
division. Reducing the Washington, DC budget by $8 million would bring 
the Washington, DC budget to close to $56 million. I continue to 
believe that it is important for the Bureau to ensure that an equal 
burden of cuts be shared by the Washington, DC office. Is it the 
chairman's understanding that of the $64 million in the budget account 
for the Washington, DC office of the Bureau of Mines in fiscal year 
1995, about $8 million is intended to be distributed to the field?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Finally, I would like to ask the chairman if he would 
be willing to try to include language in the statement of managers that 
will accompany the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations conference 
report pertaining to this discussion.
  Mr. BYRD. It is my intention to work with the Senator and take to 
conference the language pertaining to the clarifications we have just 
discussed.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to thank the Senator for his time and 
attention to this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. It has been my pleasure working with the Senator from 
Colorado and I assure him that I will continue to monitor the 
downsizing at the Bureau of Mines to ensure that their efforts are 
consistent with the spirit of the Reinventing Government initiative. I 
commend the Senator for his commitment to this issue.


                   forest service roadless area entry

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the Committee on Appropriations 
retained in this bill the full level of road funding sought by the 
Clinton administration in order to accomplish the full timber sale 
program requested by the administration. Accomplishing this 
administration's timber objective certainly would be more difficult, 
and perhaps impossible, if entry into roadless areas is restricted as 
suggested in the report language of the other body. I am troubled that 
roadless area entry continues to arise as an issue notwithstanding the 
provisions of completed forest plans.
  In a letter dated June 9, Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas 
described the adverse impacts of a prohibition on roadless area entry. 
He particularly noted the importance of access to released roadless 
areas for the purpose of remedying forest disease, and fuels buildup 
that threatens massive forest fires. Did the committee consider that 
letter?
  Mr. BYRD. In response to the Chief's letter, the committee has 
attempted to provide as much flexibility as possible to the Forest 
Service to manage the forests, consistent with current law and the 
forest plans.
  Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's view. Let me further add 
that the Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, has expressed 
strong concerns about road funding needs for fiscal year 1995, 
including strong opposition to substantial cuts imposed in the bill 
approved by the other body. The Chief has indicated that new road 
construction--a very small amount of which would enter released 
roadless areas in fiscal year 1995, is critical toward addressing 
wildfire, insect infestation, and forest disease problems.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senate has regularly used authorizing legislation to 
designate wilderness or wilderness study areas within roadless lands. 
Does the subcommittee agree that authorizing legislation may be used to 
address the roadless area issue?
  Mr. BYRD. As indicated, we have sought to provide flexibility. 
Restrictions should be addressed either through authorizing legislation 
or through amendments or revisions to forest plans.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
clarification on this matter.


                       tree measurement cruising

  Mr. CRAIG. I would appreciate the chairman's clarification on another 
issue of concern, regarding tree measurement sale preparation 
requirements, conducted by the Forest Service. My understanding is that 
the committee intends that current year language, concerning 
implementation of timber sale tree measurement sales, is to be carried 
forward to apply in the same way for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator's understanding is correct. The committee 
intends that policy directed by language included for the current year 
fiscal year--1994--would remain in effect for fiscal year 1995, 
requiring use of tree measurement to assess timber sale volume, with 
certain specific exceptions for salvage and thinning.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman. Further, as the chairman knows, the 
fiscal year 1994 Interior Appropriations act directed full 
implementation of tree measurement, except in selected areas for 
salvage or thinnings. In addition, the scaling method could be used 
where needed to support the Agency's efforts to evaluate and monitor 
its cruising techniques and help assure accurate timber sale volume 
measurements.
  Mr. BYRD. It is the intention of the committee to make sure that the 
Forest Service continue to take the necessary steps to assure sale 
volume accuracy, as tree measurement techniques go into full effect. To 
the Senator's last point, the committee expects that any sales prepared 
during fiscal year 1995 which involve the use of scaling, for allowed 
exceptions, would involve Forest Service personnel, or will be 
accomplished by contract issued by the Forest Service and paid for 
using deposits by the timber purchaser, as was provided for in fiscal 
year 1994.
  Mr. NICKLES. The minority side also agrees. The committee recognized, 
in the 1994 Interior Appropriation Act, that in moving to tree 
measurement, further monitoring must be done to assure accuracy.


                        forest service research

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the Committee on Appropriations 
has adopted a level of funding which is supportive of Forest Service 
research activities. I'm certain you will agree that research is 
critical in order to provide the foundation for management decisions 
which have become increasingly complex. For that reason, I am concerned 
that an important research project at the Intermountain Research 
Station will not be funded in fiscal year 1995. Since this research 
project is in danger of being discontinued 2 years before it is 
complete, may I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the subcommittee if I could engage them in a colloquy?
  Mr. BYRD. I understand the concern that the Senator from Idaho has 
regarding this research. I am happy to respond to his inquiries.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman. Because of the decline in anadromous 
salmon populations in Idaho, it has become important to understand the 
interactions of management activities such as grazing and riparian 
protection along streams. One study designed to learn specifically of 
these relationships is Riparian-Streams Ecosystems Research No. 4202.
  This study has been underway for 3 years and has involved 
considerable commitment from livestock grazers and other parties 
working with the Forest Service. Fence exclosures have been built at 
some expense and other on-site experiments have begun to yield 
information. If this research is dropped, it would appear that 
appropriated research funds from past years have not been used to the 
best advantage. Data gathered thus far might not be statistically 
reliable if the study period is cut short. I ask the ranking member if 
he would concur?
  Mr. NICKLES. I understand the Senator's concern about cutting off 
this research in midstream. The committee has provided appropriations 
to fully fund this research project in fiscal years 1992-94.
  Mr. CRAIG. Then is it the committee's view that the Forest Service 
should take every opportunity within its fiscal year 1995 research 
appropriations to continue this research project in order to gain its 
full benefit?
  Mr. BYRD. The committee understands the need for research to 
establish the best management practices for riparian areas. The budget 
proposed funding for the Intermountain Research Unit No. 4202 at a 
level of $447,000, which is less than has been provided in prior years. 
As the Senator knows, today's budget environment requires that 
restrictions be made. This bill is funded $336 million below last 
year's level. So, while the work on this project may be important, the 
level of funding must be balanced against the many other needs in this 
bill. Within the funds provided for this unit, the Forest Service 
should seek to continue this research effort.
  Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's view.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
clarification on this matter.


            materials, metals, and minerals research at inel

  Mr. CRAIG. I would like to call attention to some most valuable 
research that is funded in this appropriations bill. The Bureau of 
Mines utilizes the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory's Research 
Center for advanced research projects related to Bureau of Mines' 
missions that can be conducted more efficiently at the INEL. This 
relationship exists because INEL has facilities and staff that can 
conduct this research at a lower cost to the Federal Government.
  There are two primary areas of focus for this research: First, 
development of advanced technologies for recovery of metals from low-
grade resources and wastes, and second, development of advanced 
materials and processes to produce superior materials and facilitate 
use of substitute materials. Included are projects on solvent 
extraction of metals, biologically assisting minerals processing, 
production of titanium from a plasma reactor, ferrous alloy research, 
neural network modeling of cupola furnaces, noncontracting 
nondestructive evaluation for materials characterization, nanostructure 
materials and fracture mechanics of interfaces.
  These are very important areas of research and offer some fantastic 
future possibilities for metal use. The areas being addressed reduce 
waste and open new and innovative methods of metal production, uses, 
and evaluation. The research is unique and is taking us to the 
threshold of metal research and development in the next century and I 
encourage the continuation of this arrangement between the Bureau of 
Mines and the INEL.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Idaho for calling this research to 
the attention of the Senate.
  Mr. NICKLES. I recognize the importance of this most crucial research 
and thank the Senator for his statement.


               hagerman fish culture experimental station

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as the chairman is aware, we have a 
situation in Idaho which deserves our attention. The Hagerman Fish 
Culture Experimental Station, formerly the Hagerman Field Station, in 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a facility in which essential, 
basic research in fish nutrition and hatchery products is being 
conducted.
  This station was proposed for closure in the fiscal year 1994 budget. 
A colloquy among the Senators from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], Oklahoma 
[Mr. Nickles], and this Senator on the fiscal year 1994 Interior 
Appropriations bill suggested, if funds became available, that the 
facility remain open and equipment be held in place and made available 
to the University of Idaho and the aquaculture industry on a 
cooperative basis until a long-term plan could be worked out for 
operation of the station primarily by non-Federal entities. This 
arrangement has not yet been completed, although all parties have made 
substantial progress in this direction. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
has kept the station open. The University of Idaho and the Western 
Regional Aquaculture Consortium, among others, have contributed 
significant support and are conducting substantial research there. 
Additional time is needed to finalize a research agenda and plan of 
operation, but the danger remains that the station may be closed 
precipitously due to a lack of appropriations.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am aware of that possibility, since no funds were 
proposed in the budget for the station for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. CRAIG. Loss of this facility would be very unfortunate. Hagerman 
undertakes research that is key to the large aquaculture industry in 
Idaho and of great usefulness nationwide. This is an excellent example 
of State, Federal, and private sector cooperation. Research results 
from Hagerman have been put to work at other hatcheries outside Idaho, 
such as Bozeman in Montana and Stuttgart in Arkansas.
  Mr. NICKLES. I understand that Hagerman provides valuable information 
to the aquaculture industry. What are the opportunities within the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service for continuing the research underway?
  Mr. CRAIG. I have had continuing discussions with the agency and 
other parties. They believe that an arrangement can be finalized 
whereby the University of Idaho would continue to shoulder greater 
responsibility in the research under some form of cooperative agreement 
or lease. The University is supportive of this proposal, but needs time 
to plan and arrange funding for the venture. In fact, the University 
has been following through in this regard and plans an increasing 
involvement.
  However, this will not be possible if Hagerman is closed and its 
equipment removed. Until the details of a long-term agreement can be 
finalized, I am urging the Fish and Wildlife Service to hold the 
equipment in place and maintain the facility so as not to foreclose 
their management options. Ideally, the assignment of adequate non-
Federal personnel for the actual station operation and cooperative 
research would facilitate a long-term definition of mission and 
transfer of responsibilities.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree that the Senator from Idaho has outlined a 
reasonable, workable solution. The agency should continue to try and 
work out an agreement with the university and any other appropriate 
parties and I would lend my support to the Senator's proposal.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe the agency 
would be able to handle this matter internally would like us to see 
what it will do. However, I believe we should maintain some oversight. 
Last year, I asked the chairman and ranking member if we could revisit 
this matter again this year if necessary. I believe much progress has 
been made and would want the current arrangement to be continued.
  Mr. BYRD. While I am willing to encourage the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to continue working with the University to produce a 
cooperative agreement for the use of the equipment and the facility, I 
do not wish for us to direct the continued operation of a station 
proposed for closure in the budget and for which operational dollars 
are not included in fiscal year 1995. The Service should do everything 
possible to help ensure that good use can be made of the equipment and 
the facility. If the University or other non-Federal partners wish to 
take over the facility, the Service should work toward the development 
of whatever agreements might be necessary to facilitate such a 
transfer.


                     pallid sturgeon recovery plan

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, on November 7, 1993, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service released the pallid sturgeon recovery plan. According 
to the Governor of Missouri, the plan differs substantially from the 
draft that was offered for comment and review to the State of Missouri. 
Five technical studies which were critical for the plan's conclusions 
only became available after the close of the comment period on the 
draft report. Our State feels very strongly that it should at least 
have had the opportunity to consider and comment on all of the 
important information which Fish and Wildlife used to reach its 
conclusions. On June 17, 1994, the Governor of Missouri wrote the 
Secretary of the Interior, asking that the comment period be reopened 
for a period of at least 60 days. The Secretary has not responded to 
that letter. Does the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee agree that the Department of the interior 
should re-open the comment period in order to permit Missouri and other 
States the chance to comment on the plan and all important information 
which went into preparing the plan?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns voiced by the 
Senator from Missouri about time for adequate review of information 
used in the development of recovery plans. I would urge the Secretary 
to use any authorities available to re-open the comment period.
  Mr. NICKLES. I share the concerns of the Senator from Missouri and 
agree with the distinguished chairman.


                             tree thinning

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as Senator Byrd knows, it appears that 
the Forest Service will no longer be allowed to use salvage trust funds 
for thinning trees in the future. Unfortunately the budgeting process 
for the Forest Service is based on a 3-year cycle and the Forest 
Service is not able to adjust its budget for fiscal year 1995 to 
accommodate this clarification in policy. As a result, the Black Hills 
National Forest will not fully achieve the objectives of the Forest 
plan in fiscal year 1995.
  According to the Black Hills National Forest land management plan, 
stands of trees need to be thinned to prevent insect and disease from 
attacking the trees. It is my understanding that salvage trust funds 
can be expended in fiscal year 1995 to prepare and administer timber 
sales on the Black Hills National Forest for the purpose of thinning 
commercial stands of trees, where those stands of trees are in jeopardy 
of being infected with insects and disease.
  Mr. BYRD. The committee has continued salvage sales, pursuant to the 
authorities found in the National Forest Management Act. To the extent 
these authorities can be exercised on the Black Hills National Forest, 
the Forest Service should seek to do so, consistent with the forest 
plan. In addition to the salvage authority, the committee has provided 
additional funding in the regular timber sales program to help with 
situations such as on the Black Hills National Forest
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chairman. I want to emphasize that in the 
long-run, I agree with the policy that salvage funds should not be used 
for thinning operations and support the imposition of this restriction 
for the fiscal year 1996 budget, after the Black Hills National Forest 
has had an opportunity to adjust.


                           electric vehicles

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Byrd, and the ranking Republican member, Senator Nickles, for 
funding electric vehicle field operations at $1,980,000. Kansas State 
University has spearheaded a team effort as one of 12 sites across the 
country to test and evaluate electric and hybrid vehicle technology. It 
is my understanding that the Department of Energy will allocate this 
$1,980,000 to these 12 sites, known as the Site Operator Users Task 
Force.
  The funds provided by the committee will be matched by the site 
operators on at least 50-50 basis. Kansas State University will join 
with its local partners--Kansas and Missouri utilities--to purchase 
five state-of-the-art electric or hybrid vehicles, study multi-phase 
electric and hybrid vehicles chargers, purchase advanced technology 
hybrid vehicle components, and work with Underwriters Laboratory to 
improve the safety of charge stations.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Kansas is correct. This bill does provide 
$1,980,000 for electric vehicle field operations. It is also my 
understanding that the $1,980,000 is to be allocated by the Department 
of Energy to the site operator program participants. The site 
operators' program is to be commended, along with the Department of 
Energy, for trying to move this promising technology forward.
  Mr. DOLE. I would like to conclude my remarks by commending Kansas 
State University, Arizona Public Service, Los Angeles Department of 
Water & Power, Orcas Power & Light Company in Eastsound, WA, Pacific 
Gas & Electric in San Ramon, CA, Potomac Electric Power Company, Platte 
River Power Authority in Fort Collins, CO, Southern California Edison, 
Texas A&M University, University of South Florida, York Technical 
College in Rock Hill, SC, and the United States Navy in Port Hueneme, 
CA, for their leadership in developing this exciting and promising 
transportation alternative for the 21st century.


    Funding to Fight Child Abuse and Neglect on Indian Reservations

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in praise of the distinguished 
Chairman of the subcommittee and the committee, Senator Byrd. In this 
bill, he has included a measure that I am convinced will save the lives 
of countless native American children.
  Since my early days as a Member of the other body, I have worked to 
reduce the heartbreaking levels and effects of child abuse and neglect 
throughout the country. This national problem has reached truly tragic 
proportions on Indian reservations, largely due to the staggering 
levels of poverty, joblessness, and alcoholism that come from a lack of 
economic opportunity for our country's native people.
   As a father who has raised four wonderful children, I cannot ignore 
the plight of these children. As a legislator, I cannot ignore the 
Federal Government's solemn trust obligation to these children. They 
are our responsibility. When they suffer the pain of beatings, broken 
bones, neglect, and even death, we have failed them.
   Mr. President, more than 4 years ago, I held a hearing in Bismarck, 
ND, to investigate the causes of child abuse and neglect on the four 
Indian reservations in my State. Even I was shocked at some things I 
heard. I was especially touched by a little girl named Tamara. Her 
foster parents had broken her arm and her leg and torn out her hair. 
The social worker who should have been keeping an eye on Tamara had a 
caseload of over 200 children.
  Following that hearing, I worked very hard to increase the number of 
staff social workers on Tamara's Standing Rock Sioux reservation from 1 
to 12, which brought enormous relief to their efforts to save the 
hundreds of abused and neglected children on that reservation.
   Just last month, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee 
in my State. I found that the other three reservations in my State, Ft. 
Berthold, Devils Lake, and Turtle Mountain, have serious problems with 
child abuse and neglect that still are at least as bad as the situation 
at Standing Rock was 4 years ago.
   The Devils Lake Sioux reservation social services agency, which has 
had 13 different people in its three staff social worker positions in 
the last 2 years, has literally piles of abuse and neglect reports that 
they have never had the staff to review. On the Ft. Berthold 
reservation, 8 abused or neglected children attempted suicide in a 2-
week period. I heard testimony about a 3-year-old child on the Turtle 
Mountain reservation whose foster parents had locked him in a closet 
and starved him. We heard about very young children molested by parents 
or step parents. One girl testified that abuse by her father drove her 
to start drinking at age 8, until she became an alcoholic at age 14.
   In 1990, largely through the efforts of Congress' leader on Indian 
Affairs, Chairman Daniel Inouye, and that committee's vice chair, 
Senator John McCain, Congress enacted the Indian Child Protection and 
Family Violence Prevention Act. But we have not funded it at all.
   The 1990 Act is a good first step toward fixing this national 
tragedy. I am painfully aware of the realities of our Federal budget. I 
know we will not be able to fully fund the Act this year.
   But I have worked with the distinguished chairman and his very able 
staff director, Sue Masica, and counsel Kathleen Wheeler, to provide $2 
million in this bill to establish a model program to fight child abuse 
and neglect on Indian reservations.
   The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Ada 
Deer, who participated in my recent hearing in North Dakota and is a 
former social worker herself, is very eager to show that we can make a 
big difference in native American children's lives with a very modest 
investment. She has pledged to work closely with us to provide the 
staff and resources in the Aberdeen area to treat and prevent child 
abuse on Indian reservations--using the additional funds provided in 
this measure.
   Secretary Deer plans to use these funds to establish a model 
program, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Aberdeen area and on the North 
Dakota reservations, to help reservations comply with the 1990 law and 
reduce the appalling levels of child abuse and neglect that they must 
deal with every day. As I said at our hearing, Secretary Deer's 
lifelong interest in preventing and treating child abuse is a breath of 
fresh air at BIA. She has brought a new commitment, on behalf of the 
Clinton Administration, to addressing a problem that has been ignored 
far too long.
   Thanks to the funds we are providing in this measure, we finally 
will get the chance to give some abused and neglected native American 
children a way out. I am confident the model program will succeed and 
inspire us to provide the small additional investment we need to 
address child abuse and neglect on Indian reservations nationwide.
   Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting this amendment.


                              fws funding

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, in a discussion of a problem of critical importance to North 
Dakota.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has pulled nearly 
all of its Ecological Services Division staff from North Dakota, and 
that action is going to have a severe impact of the ability of farmers 
to responsibly use the pesticides they need to farm successfully.
  In North Dakota, the ecological services program has focused, in 
close cooperation with the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, on 
the Pesticides Contamination Program. This program tries to ensure that 
endangered and threatened species are not harmed by use of agricultural 
pesticides. The program allows for reasonable monitoring of the effects 
of certain pesticides on animals and plants in specific, sensitive 
areas, and such monitoring is required by the Endangered Species Act.
  This program is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect 
endangered and threatened species in North Dakota, as Federal law 
demands, and, at the same time, allow farmers to use pesticides that 
are harmless to people, animals, and the natural environment.
  A year ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service was appropriated about $21 
million in new funding to expand its work related to endangered 
species. After expending the additional $21 million, the FWS then 
transferred most of the staff and funding for its ecological services 
out of the Denver region, including North Dakota, to coastal areas. 
This is unacceptable.
  It is unacceptable from administrative standpoint because, in order 
to meet court-ordered implementation of the Endangered Species Act in 
other regions, the FWS is killing a much needed cooperative pesticides 
program which allows rational implementation of the Endangered Species 
Act in North Dakota.
  The FWS action is also unacceptable because Congress provided 
specifically in its fiscal year 1994 appropriations for additional 
funding to meet the court-ordered requirements I just mentioned. 
However, the FWS went outside our specific funding provisions and made 
a wholesale transfer of funding out of the Denver region.
  I ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee: Did 
he envision that such a withdrawal of funding from Region Eight and the 
North Dakota Pesticides Contamination Program would occur under his 
committee's 1994 appropriations bill?
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for calling the 
committee's attention to this problem, and for his question.
  Congress provided additional funding in fiscal year 1994 so the FWS 
could meet its endangered species responsibilities without terminating 
necessary programs in other regions. However, as the Senator knows, 
with the administrative and FTE reductions proposed in the fiscal year 
1994 and fiscal year 1995 budgets, some reductions and realignments may 
be necessary. But within the resources provided, the Service should 
continue to take the steps necessary to assist with the North Dakota 
Pesticides Contamination Program.


                    visitors center at hemphill knob

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to speak about a project 
that has come to my attention in the Senate Interior Appropriations 
bill. This project concerns the building of the Parkway Headquarters 
and Visitor's Center at Hemphill Knob in the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park's Blue Ridge Parkway.
  The Blue Ridge Parkway was established as a unit of the National Park 
System by an act of Congress on June 30, 1936. The act's purpose was to 
create a 470-mile motor road between Shenandoah National Park in 
Virginia and Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and 
Tennessee that would provide a means for leisurely travel and 
recraetion in a variety of significant southern Appalachian 
environments.
  Since this first selected region opened to traffic, parkway 
visitation has increased dramatically from 101,324 in 1939 to 
17,889,335 in 1993--highest visited among all of the 359 parks of the 
National Park System--even higher than the Grand Canyon National Park, 
the Statue of Liberty National Monument, and Yellowstone National Park.
  Despite the complexities of design, construction, development, and 
operation, plus its ever-increasing popularity, the parkway has not had 
a permanent headquarters in more than a half-century as a unit of the 
National Park System. Ironically, although it is almost exclusively 
rural in nature, the parkway's ``temporary'' headquarters have always 
been located in the heart of urban areas.
  After almost four decades in rented office space in Roanoke, VA, 
headquarters were moved to Asheville, NC in 1972. The reasons for the 
move were twofold: No. 1, a realignment of the National Park Service 
excluded Virginia from the Southeast Region, and No. 2, Asheville was a 
more central location in a now-dormant proposal to extend the parkway 
to near Marietta, GA.
  Since its move in 1972, the Parkway Headquarters have been located in 
what now is the BB&T Building in downtown Asheville. Some 8,100 square 
feet of office space is leased at an annual cost of approximately 
$85,000. The present lease expires in 1994.
  Development of a permanent facility in the Asheville area would 
eliminate the expense of this lease arrangement, and, more importantly, 
would accomplish one of the parkway's major objectives. This objective 
is to:

       Construct a permanent headquarters/interpretive/archival 
     complex on Parkway lands in order for management to be more 
     accessible and responsive to Parkway visitors and employees.

  The Federal Government has already purchased a tract of land, 
totaling 90 acres, in Asheville and has invested money for planning as 
well. It would make common sense financially to go ahead and fulfill 
the investment obligations and build the center in Asheville.
  Representative Charles Taylor confirmed to me that the House had 
passed the House Interior Appropriations bill which included $910,000 
to start construction of the Parkway Headquarters and Visitor's Center 
at Hemphill Knob, near Asheville. However, in the Senate bill, this 
funding was not provided.
  It is my intention to request that during conference, my 
distinguished colleagues on this committee consider this request of 
$910,000 to begin construction of these headquarters.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
North Carolina for alerting me of this situation. In response to my 
colleague's request, I will try to take this matter into consideration 
during conference.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senator indicated, this project is in 
the House bill and will have to be discussed during our conference. 
While no commitment can be made, I will keep the interest of the junior 
Senator from North Carolina in mind.


                      land exchange pilot project

  Mr. HATFIELD. As the chairman knows, the land ownership in the 
Western States is fragmented. Because Federal, State, county, and 
private lands are intermingled across watersheds and ecosystems, 
extensive cooperation is required to manage these lands under an 
ecosystem approach.
  A pilot project proposal has been brought to my attention which would 
address the cross-ownership ecosystem management problem by 
cooperatively identifying environmentally sensitive private lands which 
would be exchanged for less critical Federal lands on a voluntary 
basis. The project would test an alternative approach and would involve 
citizens, landowners, local governments, environmental groups, and 
Federal agencies in Douglas County, OR. Is it the chairman's 
understanding that a pilot land exchange project might qualify for a 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant?
  Mr. BYRD. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds, which are 
provided in this bill, are available for grants through a competitive 
application process. The grants are used for fish and wildlife and 
research demonstration projects and require matching funds. The 
committee has no say in the projects ultimately selected for funding by 
the Foundation. Project grant decisions are to be based on merit. If 
this project is submitted by its supporters to the Foundation, it 
should be considered on the same basis as any other projects proposed 
for grant funding. The same criteria should be used for all applicants.
  Mr. HATFIELD. It is my understanding that the matching funds 
requirement can be met. If a proposal of the kind just described is 
made to the Foundation, I would urge the foundation to seriously 
consider the project for funding.


                   indian school equalization program

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, despite severe spending constraints, the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has once again 
led the committee in providing funding for programs that take into 
account the real needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. I 
commend Chairman Byrd for his leadership once again.
  However, the committee included bill language relating to the counts 
of students attending Bureau of Indian Affairs schools that I would 
hope would be deleted at such a time as this bill goes to conference. 
The Committee on Appropriations sought to accommodate the 
recommendation of the Committee on Indian Affairs on this matter, but 
the bill language that is included will, I fear, result in underfunding 
of Bureau of Indian Affairs schools in the coming year.
  To clarify, I need to begin with existing law. Appropriations for the 
operation of Bureau schools are currently distributed on the basis of 
the number of students attending each school and the special 
characteristics of each student. The count of students is taken the 
last week of September, and on that basis, an upward or downward 
adjustment is made to the allocation of funds made earlier to each 
school.
  In its proposed budget for fiscal year 1995, the Bureau proposed that 
it be authorized to use the prior year's count of students, with 
adjustments made only for enrollment increases over the prior year that 
exceed 10 percent. The Bureau made the proposal despite the act that 
when it consulted with Indian educators, 70 percent said they opposed 
the proposed change.
  The language included in the bill permits, but does not require, the 
Bureau to use prior year counts. The concern of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs is that since the Bureau itself proposed the change, it will--
if granted permission to do so--use the prior year's student count.
  Mr. BYRD. I share the concerns of the chairman of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs about how funds for BIA-funded education are 
distributed. As the chairman has noted, the language which has been 
included in the bill does not require the Bureau to use prior year 
counts. Because of the concerns of the Committee on Indian Affairs and 
the concerns raised during the consultation process, language has been 
included in the Senate report which clearly requires the Secretary of 
Interior to consult with the tribes to develop a methodology for 
distributing funds. Language has also been included in the report which 
would require the Department to submit a workplan on how the Secretary 
will conduct the consultation. This language was included to assure 
that the consultation is conducted in a manner that will ensure that 
tribes and schools have an opportunity to propose alternatives to the 
current methodology.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Bureau estimates an overall increase 
of about 4 percent in its student count in September 1995. If the 
increase were evenly distributed, and the Bureau implemented its 
proposal, none of the schools would be allowed added funding 
appropriated by the Congress. Even those schools experiencing 5, 6, 7, 
8, or 9 percent increases in their enrollments would have to get by 
with a budget based on the preceding year's enrollment. In the small 
schools of the Bureau's system, such a shortfall could be especially 
harmful to educational programs.
  Mr. BYRD. When the bill language was included in the Senate report, 
the Committee assumed no particular methodology, as indicated in the 
report. In other words, the committee did not endorse the methodology 
proposed by BIA. The Secretary of Interior should consult with the 
tribes on how to implement the use of prior year enrollment in 
distributing the funds. However, if no consensus occurs on what 
methodology should be used or if the tribes do not want to use prior 
year enrollment, it is assumed that the current count week would 
continue to be the methodology used by the Bureau. Given the widespread 
reports of problems associated with the current count week, it is my 
hope that an improved and fairer methodology would emerge from the 
consultation process.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Committee on Indian Affairs shares the concern you 
have described. It is for that reason that the committee has approved 
and will soon be recommending to the Senate an amendment to the 
Improving America's Schools Act that will require the Secretary of 
Interior to contract with an organization or institution having 
expertise in school finance to conduct a two-part study of the issues. 
The first part of the study will be analysis of what level of funding 
will be required to conduct a school program that meets academic 
standards of the Bureau; the second part of the study will be an 
evaluation of the Indian School Equalization Program and a 
consideration of alternative approaches to providing basic funding for 
the Bureau schools. Under the amendment, the Secretary will choose a 
contractor only after the Department has conducted a wide solicitation 
among organizations and institutions having expertise in school 
finance.
  Mr. President, given that the study is to be completed in 6 months, 
the Committee on Indian Affairs is of the view that any change such as 
contemplated in the Senate bill should await the completion of the 
studies and analysis I have described.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the efforts of the Committee on Indian Affairs 
to examine the Indian School Equalization Program and support examining 
alternative approaches to providing basic funding for the Bureau 
schools. However, I am concerned about the portion of the study that 
will analyze the level of funding required to conduct a school program 
which meets academic standards of the Bureau. I share the concerns of 
the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs that bureau of Indian 
Affairs schools be adequately funded, and as a result, the committee 
has provided significant increases in appropriations for Bureau schools 
over the past few years. Given the caps in discretionary spending that 
the committee faces over the next few years, it is unlikely that the 
committee will be able to provide significant increases in the future, 
regardless of the conclusions reached by the study. Any study on the 
level of funding required for BIA schools should address ways to 
utilize better existing funding and ensure that funds are distributed 
in the most effective manner in light of the very real constraints 
faced by every program funded through the Interior bill.

  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
that the constraints on spending compel the Bureau and other agencies, 
of course, to seek to ensure that appropriations are efficiently and 
effectively employed to accomplish their missions. But we cannot expect 
accomplishment if the Congress appropriates less than independent 
school experts determine will be required for the conduct of programs.
  I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his 
consideration of the issues we have discussed and for his consideration 
of my views on the student count language at such time as the 
appropriations conferees meet to consider H.R. 4602.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the concerns and efforts of the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and will take them into 
consideration when the conferees meet.


            office of territories and international affairs

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I draw the attention of the distinguished floor 
managers to the third paragraph on page 65 of the committee's report, 
Rpt. 103-294, which recommends $27,720,000 for construction grants for 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. As the report 
points out, this is consistent with the amount required by section 702 
of the existing authorization (P.L. 94-241; 90 Stat. 263). The report 
language also states ``The Committee has no objection to the use of 
$2,500,000 within the funds provided to address the costs associated 
with immigration to the Northern Mariana Islands as a result of 
implementation of the Compact of Free Association.''
  For the reasons I will enumerate below, it is my hope that through 
this colloquy the Senate, with the support of the floor managers, will 
also take the position that within the funds provided, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall take appropriate actions to allocate $7 million for 
providing technical and other assistance to the CNMI to help track and 
identify alien workers entering the CNMI, to enforce applicable 
immigration laws in the CNMI, and to provide technical assistance to 
the CNMI in developing related labor rules and regulations for alien 
workers. Specifically, these funds shall be used, with the assistance 
of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, to develop a 
computer data base and identification system for aliens present in and 
entering the CNMI, including a permanent record of country of origin of 
these aliens. The funds should also be used for necessary planning, 
including architectural and engineering work, for the construction of 
detention facilities which meet applicable Federal standards and 
requirements for aliens who enter illegally or whose presence is 
otherwise not in conformance with appropriate immigration laws and 
policy in consultation with the U.S. Justice Department and other 
agencies deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
  This allocation leaves $18 million available for capital improvement 
projects to be undertaken by the CNMI Government, subject to the CNMI 
Government providing appropriate matching funds as determined by the 
Secretary. This amount is consistent with the budget request, and 
leaves in place the committee's directive that all capital improvement 
funding be subject to applicable Federal grant regulations.
  I am not proposing that foreign workers who have entered the CNMI 
legally and who remain legally employed be expelled from the CNMI. Nor 
am I proposing that the United States Government take over immigration 
duties, or that all future immigration to the CNMI be stopped. I do 
believe however that the CNMI needs to be given the necessary 
resources, including technical assistance from the INS, the Justice 
Department, and the Department of Labor to assure that applicable laws 
are followed and enforced, and that those foreign workers who enter and 
are present in the CNMI can be properly identified and accounted for 
and that those present illegally or who are in violation of other 
applicable Federal laws and policies can be deported.

  The CNMI has experienced a population explosion since 1980, 
registering growth of some 250 percent in full-time residents. Much of 
this growth is attributable to the increase of nonresident aliens, most 
of whom are believed to have immigrated from areas in the Pacific and 
Asia other than the former Trust Territory. In 1980, CNMI natives and 
indigenous peoples constituted 66.6 percent of the population of the 
CNMI, with full-time aliens, excluding immigrants from areas of the 
former Trust Territory, constituting just over 12 percent of the 
population. Immigrants from other Pacific Islands, primarily other 
parts of the former Trust Territory, constituted about 8.9 percent of 
the population of the CNMI. By 1993, CNMI natives and indigenous 
peoples constituted 36.5 percent of the CNMI population, and 
nonresident aliens, including immigrants from areas of the former Trust 
Territory, constituted 43 percent of the total population of the CNMI. 
Pacific Islanders, while increased in raw numbers, constituted just 
under 7.5 percent of the population of the CNMI. In numbers, estimates 
are that full-time nonresident aliens, primarily contract workers, 
immigrating from areas other than the former Trust Territory increased 
from about 2,100 in 1980 to over 24,800 by 1993, averaging an increase 
of over 20 percent each year. Registered births to these aliens 
totalled over 3,000 in 1993, compared to 50 in 1986, and exceeded the 
number of registered birth to indigenous residents.
  The United States has a strong Federal interest in seeing that an 
identification and tracking system is in place and that appropriate 
laws are followed. Most important, for the purposes of citizenship, the 
territory of the CNMI is considered U.S. territory. Thus, children born 
to foreign workers in the CNMI receive U.S. citizenship just as they 
could if they were born in Los Angeles or New Orleans or New York. 
These children are entitled to the same benefits and programs that 
other children having U.S. citizenship in the CNMI receive. Many of 
these programs and benefits are funded by the Federal Government.
  Second, part of the stress on infrastructure in the CNMI, which is in 
part supported by the federally funded capital improvement program, is 
attributable to the huge increase in the number of full-time alien 
residents in the CNMI.
  Finally, to assure the safety and welfare of all U.S. citizens in the 
CNMI, the Federal Government has a strong interest in knowing who these 
foreign workers are and making sure that applicable U.S. policies with 
respect to the entry of these foreign workers are enforced.
  The purpose of section 702 of the Covenant, enacted in 1976, was to 
help the CNMI develop needed infrastructure and economic resources to 
become self reliant. This section authorized the appropriation of $192 
million over a 7-year period, 1978 to 1985, for this purpose. At the 
end of this period, an agreement was reached to provide an additional 
grant totaling $228 million over a second 7-year period, 1986 to 1992. 
This second 7-year agreement provided that the CNMI would continue to 
receive $27.7 million in the eighth year and beyond for capital 
improvement projects until Congress otherwise provided. In 1992, a 
third agreement was reached to provide $120 million over a third 7-year 
period, 1993 to 1999, subject to a phased matching requirement.
  For a number of reasons, this agreement was never approved by the 
Congress, leaving in place the mandatory provision of $27.7 million 
annually for capital improvement construction grants for the CNMI. 
Accordingly in fiscal year 1993, $27.7 million was provided for this 
purpose. In fiscal year 1994, an additional $27.7 million was provided, 
with the understanding that $3 million would be used for construction 
of a memorial in the American Memorial Park on Saipan, consistent with 
commitments the U.S. Government made to construct this memorial in the 
Covenant.
  In 1993 and 1994, in response to the controversy surrounding the 
third extension of the 702 grant program, the current administration 
proposed that in addition to the amounts already received in fiscal 
years 1993 and 1994, the Federal Government provide the CNMI $18 
million in fiscal year 1995, and $9 million in fiscal year 1996, which 
would make available over $80 million for the third round of capital 
construction projects.
  There is no question that needs for improvement in the physical 
infrastructure of the CNMI remain, particularly in the areas of clean 
water, adequate sewer treatment, and adequate schools. Rapid economic 
development coupled with rapid population growth have increased 
pressures on the existing systems. As set forth in the most recent 
State of the Territories report, for example, school enrollment in 
grades K through 7 in the early 1980's was approximately 5,500; that 
has almost doubled today. Just since 1988, elementary and secondary 
school enrollment has mushroomed from under 7,400 to over 10,500 in 
1993.
  The economy has also grown at a rapid pace. Tourism has continued to 
grow. In 1980, there were about 110,300 visitors to the CNMI and 
altogether 802 hotels rooms, 710 of which were on Saipan. In 1993, over 
535,000 visitors entered the CNMI, which now has over 3,300 hotel 
rooms. Projections are that tourist entries may reach 800,000 annually 
by the year 2000 if an additional 2,000 hotel rooms can be provided to 
accommodate the increase.
  Both of these factors, economic growth centered on tourism and 
population growth, have placed strains on existing infrastructure. It 
is my opinion that there is a need for some additional Federal 
assistance to help meet these needs; however, I also believe that the 
local government can make more of a contribution than it has in the 
past. Local revenues have increased dramatically--from about $10 
million in 1980 to over $150 million in 1992. I recognize that the pace 
of economic development has created jobs outnumbering the available 
local labor pool, necessitating the use of foreign workers to sustain 
growth, particularly in certain sectors such as tourism, construction, 
and the garment manufacturing industry. The presence of foreign workers 
however is not totally beneficial to the economy. Most of these workers 
receive below minimum wage salaries and pay little into the system to 
balance the cost they have imposed on infrastructure and social 
services. Indeed, one preliminary study indicates that nonresident 
aliens impose a net cost to the economy starting at about $570 per 
capita annually and could be higher in some cases.
  Thus, if we are to provide additional Federal assistance to help 
improve the infrastructure of the CNMI, then I believe we must also 
take steps to mitigate the negative impact of nonresident aliens in the 
CNMI. I am told that one of the most serious problems encountered in 
attempting to assure compliance with immigration laws is that, once a 
foreign worker enters the CNMI, he or she loses or destroys papers 
indicating country of origin. Without proof of country of origin, it is 
impossible for officials to repatriate these foreign workers to their 
home countries when their visas expire. Even if officials are able to 
identify a person picked up as a foreign worker, few detentions occur 
for the reason that no facility is currently on island which meets 
Federal standards.
  The purpose of this additional understanding I am proposing is to 
tackle these problems head-on, by providing the necessary resources for 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as the U.S. 
Department of Justice to assist the CNMI in keeping track of foreign 
workers who enter the CNMI so that those workers who overstay their 
visas or otherwise violate the terms of their visas can be returned to 
their countries of origin, and to provide for adequate facilities to 
detain foreign workers who violate the system until they can receive 
the required hearing.
  I remain willing to ask the Federal taxpayer to help the CNMI provide 
infrastructure and services for those who are U.S. citizens and 
otherwise legally are in the CNMI. However, I do not believe the 
Federal taxpayer should be asked to help improve the infrastructure or 
provide services for those who are there illegally. This problem will 
only compound itself in the future if we do not take steps now to 
correct this situation. I believe this understanding will help 
accomplish this goal, and I hope that the administration will take 
steps to include resources to continue this effort in the fiscal year 
1996 and future budgets.
  Mr. AKAKA. I concur with the remarks of the senior Senator from 
Louisiana with whom I have worked on this particular issue for many 
years. I share his concern about developing a positive and reasoned 
response to continuing problems with respect to foreign workers in the 
CNMI and believe the first step is to develop a tracking and 
information system. I urge the managers to support this additional 
understanding.
  Mr. BYRD. I believe the suggestions offered by the Senator from 
Louisiana and the Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the authorizing 
committee and subcommittee, respectively, are constructive. The 
Senators have outlined a very serious problem which needs to be 
addressed, and I believe the approach outlined is a measured response 
to the problem. Therefore, on the basis of the information the Senators 
have provided, I support the additional understanding they have 
proposed. These modifications would still provide for an estimated $18 
million for infrastructure, while also addressing issues that 
contribute to the additional infrastructure requirements.
  Mr. NICKLES. I join my colleague from West Virginia in endorsing this 
modification to the report language, and I concur with his remarks.


                     energy performance contracting

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, might I address a question to the senior 
Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished floor manager of this 
bill?
  First, I observe that the Committee recognizes the importance of 
Federal leadership on energy conservation by recommending $21 million 
for Federal energy management. The Federal Government is faced with 
annual expenditures of $4 billion for building energy use
  What is now needed is for the Federal Government to give priority to 
the upgrading of Federal buildings as required by the 1992 Energy 
Policy Act. By targeting Federal efforts within each region, the 
Federal Government can showcase in selected cities what can be 
accomplished in Federal buildings. By coordinating this Federal effort 
with State and local government and the private sector, the Federal 
Government can foster the development of local infrastructures that can 
support the sustained installation and maintenance of building energy 
conservation measures.
  As the Committee expects, available Federal appropriations for this 
effort can be significantly supplmeneted with private investment funds 
through the use of energy service companies, utilities, and third-party 
financing or secondary market financing; for example, through the 
utilization of energy service companies and performance contracts 
measured in accordance with a State recognized measurement protocol 
equivalent to those in use in my State or New Jersey or California.
  The 5-year, energy saving performance program that was authorized by 
the Energy Policy Act needs to begin. However, proposed rules governing 
this program were not published by the Department of Energy until April 
11, 1994. Two years have already passed since enactment of this program 
and we are faced with the possibility of another year passing before 
these regulations are finalized. Another year before the Federal 
Government can realize the resultant budget savings.
  The question I like to address to the chairman of the subcommittee 
is: Would the Senator agree, since this is a test program, that Federal 
energy managers should, until the final rules are promulgated, be 
allowed to proceed under DOE's proposed energy savings performance 
contract rules?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that Federal 
building managers should be permitted to proceed with this test program 
under the April 11 proposed regulation until the current rule making is 
finalized.


                       Indoor Air Quality Program

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would like to seek to clarify a point with the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It has come to 
my attention that a small but important program within the U.S. 
Department of Energy, related to indoor air quality, was not funded in 
this bill, perhaps due to a concern that it duplicated other Federal 
programs. The DOE program on indoor air quality, though, is unique in 
both its objectives and the activities which it supports. For example, 
while other Federal programs focus on disseminating best available 
technology for indoor air quality, the DOE program is focused on 
achieving a more fundamental understanding of indoor air quality issues 
that would lead to new and perhaps revolutionary technological 
approaches. I believe that it should be retained at the modest level 
requested by the administration--$1.875 million--for three reasons. 
First, as I have already mentioned, it is distinct from, yet 
complementary to other existing programs on indoor air quality. Second, 
the fundamental insights into indoor air quality obtained by this 
program have, in the past, provided an effective technical sanity check 
on various proposals that have been advanced to improve air quality in 
buildings. Finally, maintaining acceptable indoor air quality will be 
the major challenge to achieving greater building energy efficiency. It 
is worth remembering that 38 percent of the energy consumed in this 
country is used in buildings. Some 5.5 quads of energy are consumed 
each year in air handling and conditioning. Continued fundamental 
exploration of indoor air quality issues by this program is likely to 
continue to provide new solutions to this important energy efficiency 
challenge.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for his 
views on this matter. Since the House bill provides funding for this 
program within the Department of Energy, I would like to give the 
distinguished Senator my assurance that I will address his concern in 
conference discussions with our counterparts in the House.


                             arts endowment

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to make an inquiry of the 
Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee and the distinguished chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee. I understand that the chairman of the Arts Endowment, 
Jane Alexander, has informed him of the efforts she has undertaken to 
improve the processes and procedures at the endowment.
  I believe that Chairman Alexander is doing an outstanding job and 
that we should give her the opportunity to establish guidelines that 
strike an appropriate balance between free expression and 
accountability.
  I hope that these efforts by Chairman Alexander are persuasive for 
the Senator from West Virginia and that he will keep them in mind 
during the House-Senate conference on this bill.
  I would also hope that, whatever the ultimate funding level for the 
arts endowment, Chairman Alexander will be given the discretion to 
allocate the reductions herself.
  As the Senator from West Virginia may know, the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources will be reauthorizing the arts endowment next year, 
and we look forward to examining all of these issues.
  I have received a letter from Chairman Alexander and I respect the 
plans she has outlined for the endowment. I commend these efforts and 
will keep an open mind in conference with respect to the ultimate 
funding level for the endowment and the allocation of reductions.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his comments. I 
acknowledge his leadership in our national cultural policy and very 
much appreciate his comments.
  I have met with Jane Alexander and believe she is interested in 
ensuring that the endowments funds art which is excellent and with 
merit. I understand the issues that the Senator raises regarding the 
need to permit Chairman Alexander an opportunity to establish 
appropriate guidelines at her agency, particularly in light of the 
upcoming reauthorization process.


                     forest service reorganization

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to bring the Senate's attention to 
an opportunity to save money, ease bureaucratic burdens, and improve 
service in the Forest Service. For several years now my ranking 
colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and I 
have been considering the role of regional offices in the Forest 
Service.
  Since 1974, the Interior appropriations bill has included language 
that prohibits the Secretary from closing regional offices or changing 
regional boundaries without congressional consent. This language was 
inserted at a time when President Nixon proposed 10 standardized 
regions for all agencies. Senators Mansfield and Bible thought that the 
Forest Service was best served by keeping the regional offices in the 
railroad towns where they were. Their language has persisted to this 
day--it is 20 years old.
  We had an opportunity to delete this language in S. 1970, the USDA 
Reorganization Act of 1994, but the Senate deferred at the request of 
the administration. Instead, the Senate adopted language that required 
nonbinding proposals from the Secretary to address a number of 
administrative issues, including office structure.
  I understand that the Forest Service's reinvention process is taking 
its course, and an interim report has laid out academic models that 
give some indication of the Forest Service's progress to date. It is 
still unclear what form the final proposals will take, how the Forest 
Service intends to implement the proposals, and what role the Forest 
Service foresees for Congress.
  The current language in this appropriations bill guarantees that 
Congress will have a role. Furthermore, judging from committee action 
on Bureau of Mines closures and Agricultural Research Facility 
closures, Congress will play an active role.
  The Forest Service must be ready for the 21st century--an era when 
more people will demand more from an agency limited by finite 
resources. With this in mind, I would like the Forest Service to 
consider cost saving opportunities at the forest level, the district 
level and the Washington office level as well. The organization must 
pursue the most efficient organizational structure it can identify.
  In order to make office closure recommendations politically viable, 
we could consider an approach similar to the Commission on Agricultural 
Research Facilities authorized in the 1990 farm bill. This process was 
set up to take no more than 240 days from the date of authorization. 
Alternatively, we could consider a more comprehensive strategy similar 
to the military base closing scheme. I am most interested in something 
that is responsible and realistic.
  In this respect, I wish to highlight my interest in receiving from 
the Forest Service for fiscal year 1996 a politically viable and 
administratively sound plan for downsizing, restructuring, or 
reorganizing the organization. The March 31, 1995 deadline included in 
S. 1970 should provide sufficient time for the Forest Service.
  I will not offer an amendment providing specific direction at this 
time, but I urge the administration to consider alternatives and 
present them to Congress for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for Vermont for bringing this to our 
attention. I share the Senator's interest in reorganizing the 
administrative structure of the Forest Service. The subcommittee's 
allocation continues to erode and yet the demand for services 
increases. We must eliminate inefficiencies and streamline operations 
in order to get the most from Federal agencies during tight budget 
times.
  As we have seen in the Department of Interior's effort to close some 
Bureau of Mines offices, and in the Department of Agriculture's effort 
to close some agricultural research facilities, office closures can not 
be done in a piecemeal fashion. A politically viable plan must be a 
comprehensive plan that justifies to Senators the decisions made. It 
must also take into consideration the changing roles of some of the 
other players in the Federal family when it comes to natural resource 
issues.
  Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman on this point, and I would 
like to offer two other suggestions. I hope that the Forest Service 
looks beyond the National Forest System, and considers the field 
structure of research and other facilities. The roles of other branches 
of the Forest Service are also changing.
  Second, I ask that the Forest Service work cooperatively with the 
Department of the Interior to identify possibilities where the Bureau 
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 
Service and other Federal agencies can collocate to share resources and 
save money. The administration has made a concerted effort to 
coordinate Federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest, and I believe 
similar efforts could result in cost-savings throughout the country.
  The chairman and Senator from Vermont raise a good issue about 
pursuing these changes comprehensively. The subcommittee currently has 
four members who have regional Forest Service offices in their States. 
The full committee has six members with regional offices in their 
State. Several other Senators share a strong interest in this issue, 
particularly because the regional offices are an important source of 
jobs and revenue for their constituents. A strategy must account for 
political realities of the task before us.
  We will not be able to achieve the savings that this subcommittee 
needs to find if we continue with the existing Forest Service 
structure. Furthermore, we may not serve the Forest Service well if 
office closures are based on politics alone. I share the other concerns 
mentioned by the chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
Committee and the chairman of Appropriations and look forward to 
working with them.
  Mr. LUGAR. I requested that the Forest Service examine this issue 
three years ago. A report was produced describing a variety of 
different proposals which have not been implemented to date. The 
Agriculture Committee spared mandatory direction for the Forest Service 
in S. 1970 because of the President had designated the Forest Service 
to be a laboratory for reinvention. It is critical that this effort 
produce concrete results that the administration and Congress can 
implement collectively and effectively.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman of Appropriations and the ranking 
members from both Appropriations and Agriculture for raising these 
issues with me. The ranking member of Interior Appropriations raises a 
good point with other field structures. The State and Private Forestry 
Programs will have increasingly important roles, and I am firmly 
committed to making sure the Forest Service supports these programs 
effectively where they are needed most. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to find solutions.


                 west greenland salmon fishery buy-out

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, The United States has spent millions of 
dollars on efforts to restore salmon populations in the Northeast. I 
have worked hard to build the White River National Fish Hatcher in 
Bethel, to protect the upland spawning grounds, to improve fish passage 
facilities, and to enhance the water quality in the Connecticut River.
  Unfortunately, there is still a petition to list the Atlantic salmon 
as an endangered species. There has been a missing link in our 
investment, and now we have a chance to fix it. The project initiated 
by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation and supported by the State 
Department, the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, the Atlantic Salmon 
Federation, and other sources, is one of the best investments we can 
make to bring back New England's wild salmon fishery.
  I sincerely appreciate the chairman and ranking members' flexibility 
and receptiveness in considering the amendment that Senator Lieberman 
and I have proposed. I know that this is a good investment, and I am 
confident that all of the current and past partners will remain active 
and supportive in this effort.
  Mr. BYRD. I want to emphasize this point that my colleague makes. It 
is critical that this project pursue outside funding sources to the 
extent possible to support the buy-out.
  I also want to make sure that the Department of State maintains its 
responsibility to the success of this program. In addition, the 
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration has jurisdiction in this issue and a clear 
responsibility to get actively involved. Finally, the Department of 
State has a responsibility to evaluate the success of this program and 
plan for the long-term vitality of the Northeast salmon fishery.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I share the concerns raised by the distinguished 
chairman of Appropriations, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss 
this project with him.
  The Secretary of the Interior has made a pledge to ``get in front of 
the curve'' and act proactively through the Endangered Species Act to 
avoid trainwrecks. The West Greenland salmon buy-out does exactly 
this--and in the ominous shadow of a petition to list this species in 
New England.
  I want to mention, however, that there is clearly a limit to what 
Congress, and therefore the Secretary of Interior, can do within 
budgetary constraints. We must be careful in what we promise from the 
Federal treasury, and creative in the ways that we go about the 
business of species protection. The amendment assures that the buy-out 
will happen and provides some flexibility for how it is carried out.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senators from Vermont and Connecticut have worked 
hard to protect and revive the salmon fishery, and I appreciate their 
dedication. In accepting this amendment, I want to mention the initial 
direction provided by the subcommittee in the committee report 
regarding outside sources. The chairman of the subcommittee has spoken 
well to the need to seek non-federal funding.
  While the amendment authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
support the Greenland salmon fishery buy-out, it is my understanding 
that the arrangement worked out here is a one-time fix.


                    transportation feasibility study

  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oklahoma. I understand 
that the Appropriations Committee has provided $21,050,000 for 
construction planning as stated on page 39 of the committee report. Do 
the Senators from West Virginia and Oklahoma concur that the National 
Park Service shall fund a transportation feasibility study at $50,000 
and a development concept plan at $25,000 for the Oneida & Western 
Railroad Corridor in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation 
Area to be funded by the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to the use of $75,000 
within the funds appropriated for Park Service planning for the 
aforementioned studies. It is my understanding that the Park Service 
has indicated it will defer action on a decision about the use of this 
railroad corridor while these studies are being conducted and until 
some recommendations can be made.
  Mr. NICKLES. I concur with the chairman's comments.
  Mr. MATHEWS. I thank the chairman and ranking member. This funding 
will allow the National Park Service to keep the current Oneida & 
Western Railroad Corridor open while studies are completed on access 
alternatives for the mobility impaired thereby providing a solution to 
a problem in the Big South Fork NRRA without proposing the more 
restrictive burden of a legislative solution. Ensuring that this road 
is not closed until alternate means of access are established is of 
great importance to the elderly and mobility impaired. This road is 
their only means of getting into the gorge area which is one of the 
most beautiful spots in the State of Tennessee and a popular tourist 
attraction. By engaging in this colloquy my colleagues have provided a 
great service for the people of Tennessee.


             LIGHTING OF THE DAVID BERGER NATIONAL MEMORIAL

  Mr. METZENBAUM. I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee if he would yield for the purpose of a brief 
colloquy.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Almost 22 years ago, 11 Israeli athletes lost their 
lives at the Olympics in Munich during an attack by PLO terrorists. One 
of those athletes was a young weightlifter named David Berger who 
maintained dual American-Israeli citizenship.
  A memorial in honor of David and the fallen athletes was erected in 
front of the Mayfield Jewish Community Center in Cleveland Heights, OH. 
It is a powerful tribute to their memory and the sacrifice they made in 
the spirit of international sportsmanship. In 1980, Congress designated 
the memorial a national memorial and placed it under the jurisdiction 
of the National Park Service.
  The memorial needs construction funds to complete plans to light the 
memorial at night. Would the chairman agree that the National Park 
Service should provide obligated funds for construction for this 
purpose.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator from Ohio know how much is needed to 
complete the project?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. It is my understanding that the cost of completing 
the project would not exceed $10,000.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, would the Senator from West Virginia 
yield so that I may ask the Senator from Ohio a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Would this project create recurring obligations?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. No. The costs to complete the lighting project are 
limited to a one-time allocation.
  Mr. BYRD. I would agree with the Senator from Ohio that the National 
Park Service should provide a one time allocation from unobligated 
construction funds for the purpose of lighting the David Berger 
National Memorial in Ohio.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree with the comments of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the Senator from West Virginia.


                   hudson-mohawk urban cultural park

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to ask if I might engage in a 
colloquy with my friend from West Virginia and the manager of this bill 
on a wonderful area we have in New York just north of Albany. It is the 
Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park, or RiverSpark as it is known.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to do so with the distinguished Senator 
from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend. RiverSpark is a collection of 
historically and culturally significant areas in six communities: 
Cohoes, Troy, Watervliet, Green Island, and the Town and Village of 
Waterford. They are located on the Hudson River, and formed one of the 
earliest centers of the Industrial Revolution. Iron and textiles were 
the major industries in this area blessed with resources, hydropower, 
and transportation access. Today visitors can see the restored Harmony 
Mills building with its two massive turbines, worker housing, Waterford 
Lock 2 on the Erie Canal, the Watervliet Arsenal, in operation since 
1813, and other attractions and museums.
  In 1991, Congressman McNulty from the Albany district and I 
introduced legislation that authorized a study by the Department of the 
Interior of nationally significant places in American labor history. It 
became Public Law 102-101. When complete, the study will show us which 
sites deserve designation as national historic or heritage landmarks.
  As a result of the study two sites in RiverSpark are to be nominated 
as national heritage landmarks: Harmony Mills and the home of Kate 
Mullaney, who founded the first women's union in the country--of collar 
and laundry workers.
  The next step in RiverSpark is the development of these and other 
sites, the development of educational programs and materials, and 
planning how to spread the word about this wonderful urban park and 
attract visitors. I am asked to help provide $75,000 for this purpose.
  Mr. President, I understand that there is no room left in the Senate 
bill to provide funds for RiverSpark, but I wonder if when the chairman 
goes to conference he might consider funds from the statutory aid 
account or another source that might become available in the course of 
his deliberations. The area is truly a national resource for those who 
want to learn about the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the labor 
movement.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would be happy to yield to my friend and colleague.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend, the senior Senator, for yielding and 
I join in his praise of this unique area. As usual, he has succinctly 
stated the need for this small amount of funding for RiverSpark--a 
cultural gem on the banks of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. 
Unfortunately, as you know, there is not enough money in this funding 
cycle to promote the important activities of this park. However, we 
remain hopeful that the distinguished chairman will put in a good word 
for RiverSpark when this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. BYRD. I say to my colleagues from New York that in conference I 
will keep this effort in mind.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from West Virginia.


                  GIFFORD PINCHOT NF LAND ACQUISITION

   Mrs. MURRAY. I commend the Chairman once again for the excellent 
work he has done in leading the committee, and the Senate, through a 
challenging process. He and his staff have done an outstanding job 
providing resources to key programs while balancing severe budgetary 
constraints. I am particularly appreciative that some very important 
land acquisition projects have been funded in the bill.
  There is one project, however, that came up very recently; in fact, 
too late to be considered by the committee. The Mt. St. Helens National 
Volcanic Monument is located in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 
This monument was established as a living laboratory for people to 
monitor the recovery of nature following a catastrophic volcanic 
eruption. There is but one inholding remaining within the monument. The 
owners of this land, located near the Toutle River on the monument's 
west side, have secured logging permits to harvest its timber. At the 
last minute, the Forest Service and some local conservationists have 
approached the owners about the possibility of selling the land.
  The owners have expressed interest. In fact, a tentative purchase 
agreement is in place. It is possible this acquisition could be 
undertaken for a relatively modest sum. While it has not been addressed 
in either the House or Senate bills, I am interested in working with 
the chairman and the other conferees to see if we can include language 
in the statement of managers encouraging the Forest Service to use its 
emergencies and inholdings account to address this issue. Would the 
chairman be willing to work with me to consider whether such an 
accommodation can be worked out in conference?
  Mr. BYRD. The financial constraints we face this year are very real 
indeed, as I have endeavored to point out to my colleagues. If the 
situation is truly urgent, and if an agreement is reached with the 
property owners, I believe the emergencies/in-holdings account would be 
the appropriate manner in which to address this issue. With this in 
mind, I will be happy to work with the Senator from Washington to 
accommodate her interests in the Statement of Managers.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
consideration, and look forward to working with him.


              mount st. helens national volcanic monument

  Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to thank the chairman again for his 
assistance in creating this amendment to help ensure completion of the 
Johnston Ridge Observatory. This is very important to people in Cowlitz 
County, WA, and will help make Mount St. Helens the world-class 
ecological exhibit we have always envisioned.
  At this time, I would like to clarify with the chairman the actual 
effect of my amendment. Essentially, it shifts $1,474,000 out the 
recreation roads construction account into the recreation facilities 
construction account. In so doing, it provides $2,403,000 to complete 
construction of the Johnston Ridge Observatory, and $1,773,000 to 
construct road and parking facilities necessary for public access and 
use of the observatory.
  Does the chairman concur in this interpretation?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator for Washington is correct. Her amendment 
provides funds for completion of Johnston Ridge Observatory and 
associated roads at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument as she 
has described.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman.


                      land acquisition in wyoming

  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee yield for the purpose of a brief colloquy?
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman. I wish to engage the distinguished 
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee in discussion 
regarding appropriations for land acquisitions in Wyoming.
  For many years now, the U.S. Forest Service regional offices 
responsible for managing the Federal forest of Wyoming have presented 
the administration with a priority request for land acquisition 
funding. Until the fiscal year 1995 request was made, the regional 
priority--and we have two regions in Wyoming--has been to acquire 
scenic easements in a most unique area of Wyoming, known as Buffalo 
Valley.
  Mr. President, Buffalo Valley lies at the entrance to both Grand 
Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park, which, as the 
chairman knows, is our country's very first national park. The area is 
a unique treasure and, because of the recognized beauty and the visual 
resources of the area, there is tremendous pressure to develop vacation 
homes, condominiums, and the like.
  These national parks are located in Teton County, WY. Only 3 percent 
of that county is private land. There is little left to develop other 
than the few private ranches that remain.
  Buffalo Valley is bordered by wilderness areas, national forest, and 
national park land. One of the few remaining large inholdings in that 
area is the Fuez Ranch, and it lies in the middle of Buffalo Valley. It 
is not only splendid ranching property, but has a unique view of the 
Grand Tetons, and is a focal point of development pressure. This ranch 
has been approved for subdivision development. The owner, however, is 
willing to forgo development if the Federal Government will provide 
funding to acquire scenic easements.
  The Federal Government now has a rare opportunity to acquire an 
interest in this property--a scenic easement--which will forever 
protect the aesthetic quality of that national treasure. Time has run 
out; unfortunately, there were always too many other conflicting needs 
to allow full funding for this proposal in past years to delay 
development growth. Now, it is my understanding there is still a great 
likelihood we will lose a valuable opportunity to protect this resource 
if the Government does not act in the coming fiscal year.
  Mr. President, I am informed that there is a fund available to 
the Forest Service, the Emergency Inholdings Account, which--although 
limited--would provide the administration with funds to acquire 
inholdings and property interests on an ``opportunity'' basis.

  I would ask the chairman whether such a fund might be an appropriate 
source to obtain some funds to protect Buffalo Valley before 
development pressures take control of events?
  Mr. BYRD. That account may very well be an appropriate source for 
funding.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would inform the Senator from Wyoming that I, too, 
believe that may be an appropriate source of funding for the 
acquisition described by the Senator.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman. And I thank our distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Nickles.
  I would respectfully ask both our distinguished chairman and our 
ranking member if they would be willing to work with me, this 
administration, and the U.S. Forest Service in order to see if we can 
properly acquire funding for this very important Wyoming resource.
  Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to work with the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Wyoming can be assured of my assistance 
as well.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman, Senator Byrd, and our 
distinguished subcommittee ranking member, Senator Nickles, for their 
courtesy. Their support is most welcome and I do thank them.
  I yield the floor.


                             forest service

  Mr. WALLOP. Page 7 of the committee report includes some limitations 
on the Forest Service. It specifically prohibits the Forest Service 
from changing the boundaries of any region, moving or closing any 
regional office for research, State and private forestry, or National 
Forest System administration without the consent of the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Senate and House Committees 
on Agriculture. I assume the committee inadvertently forgot to include 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Under the Senate 
rules, the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction over forest 
reserves and wilderness areas other than those created from the public 
domain. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction 
over public lands and forests. Any such proposal from the Forest 
Service should be referred to both authorizing committees. Again, I 
assume that this was an inadvertent oversight and I would ask whether 
the chairman and ranking member could assure me that the statement of 
managers on the conference report will correct this oversight.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the Senator bringing this matter to our 
attention. There was no intention to affect any committee jurisdiction 
and we will see that all appropriate authorizing committees are 
notified of any such proposal and we will attempt to see that the 
statement of managers correctly reflects this.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
should have been mentioned.


                           acid mine drainage

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and 
other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for including 
language in the report on Interior and Related Agencies which states 
that while the committee continues to provide funding for research and 
development of acid mine drainage treatment and abatement techniques, 
the committee expects that the Department will build upon this existing 
body of research and seek to marshal and focus the significant existing 
resources available within OSM, the Interior Department, and other 
Federal and State agencies in this effort.
  In this regard, the committee's point is well-placed, that is pursuit 
of any new AMD initiatives, the Department will continue to recognize 
the provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
[SMCRA], which provide coal producers a wide range of alternatives for 
minimizing acid mine drainage, including treatment to reduce pollutants 
that may be present before discharge off the mine permit area.
  As ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I 
believe it is imperative that the Office of Surface Mining conduct this 
important effort within the statutory framework established by SMCRA 
and would urge the chairman and ranking member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee to consider affirming the language in the 
Statement of Managers of the conference report.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the insightful comments of the 
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop]. His observations are absolutely 
correct as to the importance of the Office of Surface Mining adhering 
to the legislative directives of SMCRA in addressing acid mine 
drainage. This is an issue which is very important to West Virginia and 
the Appalachian region as a whole and could have implications for 
Western States such as Wyoming as well. I will carry his thoughts and 
observations into the conference with the House.


                       energy efficiency programs

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to enter 
into this colloquy with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, 
the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. As 
my colleague knows, I am deeply concerned by the committee's proposed 
reductions from the President's requests for energy efficiency 
programs. The President proposed an increase of $288 million in fiscal 
year 1995 to implement the Energy Policy Act of 1992, various important 
energy initiatives, a variety of successful programs, and the voluntary 
measures under the climate change action plan. The House provided an 
increase of $134 million for these accounts, but the Senate committee 
was only able to provide an increase of $53 million in this important 
area. In the area of the State energy programs alone, including the 
State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional Conservation 
Program, and the Low Income Weatherization Program, the Senate bill 
would provide $264.4 million. In fiscal year 1979 these same programs 
received $558 million, so that if inflation were taken into account, 
the funding level would be over $1 billion today.
  In light of the important national goals these programs promote, 
especially the State Energy Conservation Program, the Institutional 
Conservation Program, the Rebuild American Program, the Home Energy 
Ratings and Energy Efficient Mortgage Program, the alternative fuels 
promotion activity, section 409 of the Energy Policy Act, the 
Weatherization Program and the so-called nice three program; these 
programs are worthy of support and the house-passed levels are 
preferable.
  I wish to ask my distinguished colleague whether, in light of our 
mutual desire to achieve a balanced national energy policy, including 
energy efficiency programs, he could work toward restoring the funding 
in these programs to the House-passed levels in conference with the 
House.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate by colleague's strong support for these 
programs, and while I cannot make a specific commitment to fund fully 
the House-passed levels for these programs which will be determined in 
a House-Senate conference on this bill, I am sympathetic to this 
approach and will take the Senator's concerns into consideration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States of America uses more 
energy than any other country in the world. We are the sixth most 
intensive energy user on a per capita basis. This means that the United 
States has to deal with serious environmental problems, national 
security problems, social problems, and economic competitiveness 
problems associated with energy costs. The amendment in committee that 
cuts $11 million from the Department of Energy cuts into a chance to 
turn some of these problems around.
  One promising opportunity is the integrated resource planning [IRP] 
program which helps States implement cost-effective conservation 
measures to reduce demand and enhance energy supply. According to the 
World Resources Institute's Environmental Almanac, Vermont earned an 
IRP grade of ``A'' in a national ranking. However, Vermont still spends 
$800 million a year for imported energy despite these good efforts. I 
have to assume that there are many other States that lose much more 
than $800 million annually from their local economies, and could put 
this problem to excellent use.
  The weatherization program in the DOE budget helps low-income 
families stay warm in the winter--not just by paying fuel bills, but by 
helping them to save energy. Rebuild America, another example of a 
promising conservation program, is an umbrella program in the buildings 
program area that enhances commercial and community-level energy 
efficiency through local partnerships. The State Energy Conservation 
Program helps businesses and industry become more competitive by 
reducing energy consumption and associated costs.
  The Energy Efficient Mortgage Program in this bill helps Americans 
qualify for larger home mortgages if they buy an energy efficient home. 
Vermont has been using this program since the early 1980's, and it is 
time to get more States involved. By way of example, a family in 
Burlington, VT was able to get a larger mortgage, decrease their 
monthly energy costs, and save almost $100 a month. This makes 
economic, social, and environmental sense.
  I could list many other programs affected by the $11 million cut in 
committee. I could also mention some of the 938 organizations 
nationwide who have written to the President in support of these 
programs. At this point, however, I simply urge my colleagues to find 
out how these programs help their States and then support an increase 
in conference. I hope that in conference we can restore the energy 
conservation money, and hopefully settle close to the House mark.


                              flood relief

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I initially came to the floor to offer an 
amendment to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
National Park Service's Historic Preservation Fund for relief to 
buildings damaged in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, by the recent 
floods cased by tropical storm Alberto. I, and my colleague from 
Georgia, Senator Coverdell, modeled the amendment along the lines of 
relief included in last year's Midwest floods supplemental 
appropriations.
  However, after discussion of this amendment with my distinguished 
colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as the distinguished junior 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], I request unanimous consent that 
we be allowed to enter into a colloquy to discuss this problem and a 
possible solution which could provide expedited relief for historic 
preservation sites damaged by the floods resulting from tropical storm 
Alberto.
  I would like to direct a question to the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators Byrd and Nickles. It is my 
understanding that in February 1994, Congress made available $550 
million as part of Public Law 103-211 to the President to meet 
unanticipated needs resulting from the January 1994 California 
earthquake, the Midwest floods, and other disasters, over $27.85 
million of these funds remain available and unused at this time. Is 
that the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator. Am I further correct in my 
understanding that these funds, because they are to be spent at the 
President's discretion, could be used to remedy some of the terrible 
destruction to historic properties that has occurred in my home State, 
as well as Alabama and Florida, from tropical storm Alberto?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Senator is correct. And I would like to add that 
given the availability of these funds relief could be provided on an 
expeditious basis for the communities impacted in Georgia, Alabama, and 
Florida.
  Mr. NUNN. Is it the understanding of the distinguished ranking member 
that these funds will remain available to the President until they are 
expended?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator and would like to yield to my 
colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to state for the benefit of my colleagues 
the great need for such disaster assistance in the southwestern part of 
Georgia, as well as eastern Alabama and northern Florida. In the last 3 
weeks, Senator Nunn and I have witnessed countless examples of the 
devastation caused by one of the worst floods in the history of the 
region. Among the casualties of these floods are many of the historic 
buildings in towns along the Ocmulgee and Flint Rivers. I wonder if the 
Senator from Georgia would care to comment on the destruction to 
several of the historic communities in our State caused by the rising 
flood waters that he and I have witnessed in the past 3 weeks.
  Mr. NUNN. I am pleased to comment on the Senator's remarks. He and I 
have both spent time in our State visiting areas completely washed out 
by the flood waters. For example, in the historic business district of 
Montezuma, GA, the flood waters have caused extensive water and mud 
damage to virtually the entire historic central business district. 
Additionally, three dozen brick buildings which were under 
consideration for the National Register of Historic Places suffered 
severe damage to brick foundations and walls, interior walls, and 
floors. All of Montezuma's flood problems are being compounded by 
septic complications arising from the flooding of the local sewer.
  I would inform my colleagues that similar problems exist in several 
other towns in the area. The city of Albany, GA, a city of 50,000, for 
example, has had extensive damage to its many historic buildings, as 
well. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources reports that the 
historic African-American neighborhood of South Albany was severely 
flooded, with waters in several blocks reaching the roofs of historic 
houses. Also, the flood waters have seriously damaged several historic 
buildings at Albany State College on the banks of the Flint River. As 
in Montezuma, the cleanup efforts will be made more difficult by the 
flooding of the local sewer.
  In the town of Juliette, GA, on the Ocmulgee River, approximately 10 
buildings in the downtown area made famous by the movie ``Fried Green 
Tomatoes'' have sustained water damage to floors, lower interior and 
exterior walls, and foundations.
  The town of Newton, GA, which will have to be almost completely 
relocated as a result of the floods, has suffered extensive damage to a 
block of historic buildings adjacent to its courthouse. This entire 
block was virtually submerged by the flood waters. Approximately two 
dozen historic residences in the town were flooded in varying degrees.
  I appreciate the assistance of the chairman and the ranking member of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Nickles. I am hopeful 
this colloquy will highlight the needs of many of my constituents to 
preserve Georgia's historic buildings and the heritage of these 
communities.


    Amendment No. 2387--Funding for Indians Into Psychology Program

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, several days ago, I shared with my 
colleagues the horrifying experiences of several young native American 
children who had been subjected to abuse or neglect by their parents 
and others. While it is too late to prevent the abuse these children 
have suffered, there is some hope that the damage can be mitigated if 
they receive professional counseling and care. It would have been far 
better, of course, if there had been professional preventive 
intervention prior to the abuse.
  The Indians Into Psychology program that Senator Burns' amendment 
proposes to fund in fiscal year 1995 would be an important step toward 
helping the abused native American children in my State and throughout 
the Nation. The goal of the program is to improve the quality and 
relevance of mental health services available to native Americans by 
increasing the number of American Indian psychologists.
  According to the Indian Health Service, child abuse is just one 
symptom of deep psychological problems that exist on our reservations. 
Native Americans are almost twice as likely to die before age 25 as 
individuals from all other races. They are 50 percent more likely to 
commit suicide, 90 percent more likely to be murdered, and almost six 
times more likely to die from alcoholism. It is hard to believe, but 
these statistics become even more shocking when we look at the younger 
native American population. Native American children are almost four 
times more likely to commit suicide, more than three times more likely 
to be murdered, and more than 10 times more likely to die of 
alcoholism. Depressive disorders are four to eight times as likely to 
affect native Americans than the rest of the U.S. population.
  My personal observations about the need for additional mental health 
resources are underscored by a recent North Dakota survey that 
indicated that only one of our four reservations had daily or even 
weekly access to a psychologist. The American Psychological Association 
estimates that there are fewer than 30 clinical native American 
psychologist in the entire country, which means there is only one for 
every 60,000 native Americans residing in the United States. In the 
general population, there are 16.7 clinical psychologists for each 
100,000 people.
  Mr. President, the need for mental health providers on our 
reservations is obvious, and the Indians Into Psychology program would 
begin to address the problem by training and educating native Americans 
as psychologists to serve this special population. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Burns amendment and join with us to begin to address the 
mental health needs of native Americans.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Mr. Nickles, for his 
excellent work. I thank his staff.
  So with the understanding that this is everything that I know about, 
Mr. President, I am ready to vote. I am ready for third reading and the 
vote.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first let me say I wish to congratulate 
Senator Byrd for his chairmanship of the full committee, but certainly 
this subcommittee because it certainly has been a pleasure to work with 
him in passage of this. He worked very diligently in expediting passage 
of this bill, and worked through 60-some amendments today as well as 
noted countless colloquies.
  So it is a pleasure to work with him.
  I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. It is far different from last year, is it not?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 4602), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
bill, as amended, was passed.
  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, I say to my friend, as we leave for the 
evening,

       Give me my robe, put on my crown. I have immortal longings 
     in me.

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                         Commendation of Staff

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also in addition to congratulating 
Senator Byrd, I would like to compliment the professional staff, Sue 
Masica, as well as Cherie Cooper who have done outstanding work with 
bipartisan cooperation which I very much appreciate.
  In addition, I wish to compliment the work of Rusty Mathews and 
Kathleen Wheeler, Ginny James, Dan Salisbury and Ellen Donaldson.
  I think they have performed very vital functions, and they are very 
professional, very competent. I appreciate their efforts and 
cooperation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments and request a conference with the House of Representatives, 
and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part 
of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Feingold) 
appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Stevens, 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Burns 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both the majority leader and the 
Republican leader for their excellent cooperation and support in 
helping to bring this bill to the floor, and in clearing it for action 
and passage.


                         Commendation of Staff

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also thank the following staff members: 
Barbara Videnieks of my staff, Chief of Staff; of the full committee, 
and majority staff, Mr. Jim English, Mary Dewald, Marsha Berry; of the 
full committee, the minority staff, in particular Keith Kennedy; of the 
Interior Subcommittee, majority staff, Rusty Mathews, Kathleen Wheeler, 
Ellen Donaldson, Dan Salisbury, on assignment from the National Park 
Service, Sue Masica; and of the Interior Subcommittee, minority staff, 
Cherie Cooper, and Virginia James; of the Appropriations Committee 
support staff, Nancy Brandel, Jack Conway, Bob Putnam, Richard Larson, 
Bernie Babik, Bob Swartz, and Joe Thomas.
  Mr. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________