[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now proceed to 
consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4602, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4602) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by 
     all of the conferees.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 22, 1994.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the conference 
report on H.R. 4602, the fiscal year 1995 Department of the Interior 
and related agencies appropriation bill. This conference report and 
accompanying statement of the managers appeared in the Congressional 
Record on September 22, 1994, on pages H9536 through H9552.
  The agreements before the Senate today total $13.573 billion in 
budget authority, and $13.965 billion in outlays, as scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office. These amounts include $450 million in 
emergency appropriations above the normal appropriations for 
firefighting due to the devastating fire season occurring this year. 
The recommendations of this conference agreement represent a total 
decrease below the amounts requested in the budget of $196.9 million in 
budget authority and $157.9 million in outlays. And in the end, when 
all of the required scorekeeping adjustments are made, this bill is 
$210.6 million below the level of funding provided for these programs 
in fiscal year 1994.
  I hope that Senators will take note. Let me repeat. The 
recommendations of this conference agreement represent a total decrease 
below the amounts requested in the budget of $196.9 million in budget 
authority and $157.9 million in outlays. And in the end, when all of 
the required scorekeeping adjustments are made, this bill is $210.6 
million below--let me repeat, below--the level of funding provided for 
these programs in fiscal year 1994.
  In order to comply with the 602(b) allocation, an across-the-board 
reduction of 0.191 percent has been taken. This reduction will be 
applied to all programs, projects, and activities, except for mandated 
settlement payments and certain smaller accounts in the bill.
  Mr. President, reaching agreement between the House and Senate is 
never easy on appropriations bills, and this bill is no exception. Each 
Senator would probably recommend a different compromise than that 
before the Senate today. I would remind all Senators, however, that 
this package attempts to address the many different priorities of all 
Senators, and House Members. No one is 100 percent satisfied, nor does 
any Member get everything exactly the way he or she might prefer.
  The conference had to resolve nearly 1,000 items of discrete 
difference between the House and the Senate. The bill had a total of 
119 Senate amendments. The formal conference met on 2 different days, 
which was preceeded by many hours of preliminary negotiations. This 
bill has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny. Most Members 
have a direct interest in projects in the bill that affect their 
States, as well as the numerous policy issues.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Nickles for his assistance on the 
Interior bill throughout our consideration of these matters this year. 
The Senate bill and the conference agreements were fashioned in a 
bipartisan manner. Obviously, not every request can be fulfilled. But 
we have done our best to maintain program continuity while also 
addressing items of interest to Members.
  Mr. President, I would like to highlight some of the items in the 
conference agreement.
  The bill contains a 1-year moratorium on the issuance of mining 
patents on the public lands. The provision is repealed if mining law 
reform legislation now in a House-Senate conference is enacted prior to 
sine die adjournment of the 103d Congress. The amendment provides that 
the Secretary of the Interior shall continue to process patent 
applications that were filed prior to the date of enactment of this 
Act, if the applicant had complied fully with all of the requirements 
under the general mining laws for such patent.
  The subcommittee has attempted to protect the operational base of the 
agencies funded in the bill, while at the same time these agencies are 
having to take their share of administrative and personnel reductions.
  Total funding in the bill for Federal land acquisition and State 
outdoor recreation grants is $235.6 million. This amount is $18.7 
million below the fiscal year 1994 level and $18.7 million above the 
President's request for fiscal year 1995.
  Total funding for construction in the land management agencies 
amounts to nearly $454.1 million. This total is about $84.4 million, or 
16 percent, below the fiscal year 1994 appropriation for these same 
construction accounts.
  Funding for energy conservation programs grows by $102.8 million, or 
15 percent, over the fiscal year 1994 enacted level. Funding for the 
energy weatherization grants program is recommended at $226.8 million, 
and funding is included to allow for the transition to a new formula 
for distribution of such funds.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, in addition to my thanks to 
Mr. Nickles, the very able ranking member on the minority side for the 
subcommittee, I wish to thank all the members of the subcommittee on 
both sides of the aisle. I also wish to pay my sincere respects to the 
chairman of the House conferees, Mr. Yates. Mr. Yates is a very, very 
able protagonist. He knows this bill from beginning to end, upside down 
and crossways. He carries with him to conference always the courage of 
his convictions. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Yates over these many, 
many years, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
  Also, I thank and express my admiration for Ralph Regula, the ranking 
minority member on the House side. Mr. Regula is always considerate, 
courteous, and ably presents the views of his constituents. I always 
count it a joy to sit across the conference table from Ralph Regula. 
And I compliment the other members of the House conference as well.
  I close by thanking the members of our staffs. Sue Masica is 
preeminently capable and did an excellent, excellent job on this bill. 
She knows it from beginning to end. I get many compliments on her from 
other Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
  I also compliment Cherie Cooper, who is likewise an extremely able, 
courteous, and considerate member of the staff. She is top staff 
assistant to Mr. Nickles. Others on the Interior Subcommittee majority 
staff are Rusty Mathews, Kathleen Wheeler, Ellen Donaldson, Dan 
Salisbury, on assignment from the National Park Service. On the 
minority side, Ginny James. Others I wish to thank are Jim English, the 
director of the Appropriations Committee staff in the Senate, Marry 
Dewald, Barbara Videnieks, Marsha Berry, and Anne Miano. And I thank 
Keith Kennedy, who is the minority staff director. He is a fine 
individual, who is always most considerate and is very able. It is a 
pleasure to work with minority staff members such as these whom I have 
named.
  Mr. President, I shall yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Nickles] is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Byrd for his 
comments and most of all for his leadership in managing the Interior 
appropriations bill, and particularly through conference. As usual, he 
has handled himself in this subcommittee very professionally and I 
think he has done an outstanding job.
  I might mention, this has not been an easy job, because we have less 
money to spend than we did last year, as Senator Byrd mentioned, about 
$200 million less than we had last year in budget authority. That is 
about a 1.5-percent reduction for 1995 as compared to 1994. So that 
makes it difficult.
  As my colleagues know, we are dealing with agencies that affect a lot 
of States, a lot of constituencies and, therefore, there are a lot of 
requests, with individual Members trying to assist their constituents.
  So we have worked together. And I appreciate the fact that Senator 
Byrd is willing to work with all members of the committee, Democrat and 
Republican.
  I also wish to thank all the other members of the committee. This 
subcommittee probably has a more active membership within the 
subcommittee than most others because, again, it affects individual 
States significantly.
  Mr. President, Senator Byrd outlined the overall impact of this bill, 
but let me just touch on a few things so my colleagues will have a 
little bit better flavor of some of the individual items.
  Senator Byrd mentioned that this year we actually have $213 million 
less budget authority than we did in fiscal year 1994. I will touch on 
a few things.
  The Bureau of Land Management is plus $34 million; the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service is down $5.7 million. The Park Service--and I regret 
we were not able to do more in this regard--the Park Service total is 
about $1.7 million less than 1994; the USGS, the U.S. Geological 
Survey, $12 million less than last year; the Bureau of Mines, $16.7 
million less than last year in budget authority.
  Mr. President, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while we have the 
operation of Indian programs going up by about $36 million, 
construction for a variety of programs is down by $36 million. And the 
total net for BIA is down $27.3 million, compared to last year in 
budget authority.
  The total for the Department of Interior is down by $51 million, 
compared to last year, that is to $6.5 billion, a reduction overall.
  Senator Byrd mentioned that in the Department of Agriculture we do 
funding for the Forest Service. We have an increase basically under the 
nomenclature of emergency forest firefighting supplemental because of 
all the forest fires we have had out in the West. That is an emergency 
declared off budget, you might say, of $450 million. The total increase 
of Department of Agriculture including that $450 million is $439 
million. So there is actually a reduction in the Forest Service of 
about $11 million, compared to last year if you did not have the 
emergency supplemental.
  The Department of Energy has a total reduction of $148 million. And 
that is also including the fact, as Senator Byrd mentioned, energy 
conservation will go up by $102 million. So other programs are reduced 
by about $250 million in the Department of Energy.
  The total in Indian health services, I might mention to the Presiding 
Officer, goes up by about $24 million, for a total of little less than 
$2 billion for Indian health services.
  I might mention, too, Smithsonian goes up by $29.6 million, and the 
National Endowment for the Arts received a 2 percent reduction, for a 
reduction of about $2.5 million.
  Mr. President, that is just a thumbnail sketch. If you added all 
those changes together and many others in smaller detail, you see that 
we have a total budget authority for the fiscal year 1995 of $13.5 
billion. That is $213 million less than we had in 1994. That made our 
task very difficult.
  So, again, I wish to thank and compliment the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Byrd, for 
his cooperation.
  I would also like to echo his comments concerning our staff. I think 
Cherie Cooper, working on our side, has done an outstanding job; as 
well as Sue Masica on the majority side. They are both a pleasure to 
work with. They have handled this bill in a very competent and a very 
professional manner.
  I think we have a product that we can be proud of.
  I yield the floor.


              american indians in the field of psychology

  Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. I will be pleased to yield for a question from the Senator 
from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. On July 25, when this appropriations bill was on the 
Senate floor, Senator Byrd, the chairman of the subcommittee, offered 
an amendment in my behalf which made $250,000 available for the 
recruitment and training of American Indians in the field of 
psychology. In conference with the House, the bill language was dropped 
and report language was to be written about this program. Does the 
chairman recall the agreement we made on this item in conference?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. BURNS. I was pleased but also somewhat concerned that the 
statement of the managers language on this item--page 52--indicated 
that the initiative should be considered for funding in fiscal year 
1996. I appreciate this language and I believe that the initiative 
should be considered for funding in fiscal year 1996. My concern, 
however, is about what happens to this program in fiscal year 1995.
  Does the chairman agree that this initiative, the initiative to 
recruit and train American Indians in the field of psychology, should 
be considered for funding in fiscal year 1995?
  Mr. BYRD. The committee would have no objection if IHS were to 
identify funds and propose a reprogramming to initiative this specific 
program in fiscal year 1995. The statement of the managers notes that 
in fiscal year 1995 the IHS scholarship program will support 18 
continuing students and 6 new scholarship awards in the area of 
clinical psychology. These programs have compatible objectives as the 
Indians-into-psychology program.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree with the chairman of the committee. The 
agreement on this item focused on fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senators.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 4602. I would also like to commend the 
conferees of both Houses, and especially the chairman and ranking 
members of the House and Senate Interior subcommittees, Senator Byrd, 
Senator Nickles, Representative Yates, and Representative Regula. 
Finalizing this conference report took a lot of hard work and difficult 
decisions.
  Mr. President, I would like to reiterate a few themes from my 
statement during the Senate consideration of this bill last July. This 
may be the first year in a long time that nearly every appropriations 
bill has included spending reductions. I serve on both the Budget and 
Appropriations Committees, so I've had a hands-on opportunity to see 
this shift take place over the past year and a half.
  We have already completed work on several appropriations bills this 
year. They each carry a similar profile. They try to hold a line on 
important programs; they reduce FTE's; they phase down programs at, or 
close to, the end of their usefulness.
  The Interior appropriations bill is no different. In this bill, the 
committee has provided funds for only the most important programs, to 
achieve only the most critical goals. Critical conservation goals. 
Critical resource management goals. Critical investment goals. As you 
can imagine, Mr. President, this has required a lot of tough decisions.
  Coming from a Western State, I can appreciate the difficulty in 
making these choices. I know the maintenance backlog at our national 
parks. I know the demand for tourist services and public education. I 
know the pressing need to repair culverts and restore habitat in the 
national forests.
  The agencies under the jurisdiction of the bill are a big part of 
communities all over Washington. When they lost employees, 
the communities lose neighbors. When they lack funds to implement laws 
or regulations, they create controversy. Each time the Senate considers 
even the obscure little provision in a bill like this, we send a ripple 
effect through States like mine.

  Against this backdrop, H.R. 4602 is an attempt to balance competing 
demands under difficult circumstances. While there are many worthy 
projects and important issues which the committee could not address, I 
feel this bill reflects an effort to be fair. Now that the committee 
has made these choices, now that we have identified our priorities, it 
is terribly important--to my State and many others--that we move 
quickly to pass this bill.
  Briefly, I would like to highlight some of the reasons H.R. 4602 is 
important to Washington State. First and foremost, it provides critical 
funding necessary to implement the Clinton forest plan.
  Funds are provided for this purpose to the Forest Service, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National 
Biological Survey, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although the 
committee was only able to provide about 75 percent of the needs 
identified by the agencies, H.R. 4602 contains enough for these 
agencies to legally implement the plan. These funds are sufficient to 
allow planning, watershed assessment, and Endangered Species Act 
consultations to proceed. In other words, to get things moving and keep 
them moving. The Senate conferees receded to the House position on this 
latter point to ensure maximum resources are devoted to the 
consultation process.
  In addition, funds are provided for watershed restoration. This work 
provides much-needed jobs throughout the national forests in my State. 
It is also a solid investment to make sure the forests of the future 
remain healthy and productive.
  Many people have criticized the President's plan. Believe me, it is 
easy to criticize, because multiple-use forest management is very 
complicated. But it's also easy to oversimplify the problem when things 
aren't going well.
  Those of us elected in 1992 inherited a train wreck. 
This administration was asked to correct for a decade of overcutting, 
followed by 5 years of mismanagement, inaction, litigation, and 
division. Who in their right mind would believe this problem could be 
repaired overnight?

  To use President Clinton's words, his plan will bring the 25 million 
acres of national forest into a scientifically credible, legally 
responsible, and economically substainable management plan. There is a 
lot at stake; I think we, in Congress, need to support the effort.
  Posed with the choice between jobs and the environment, the President 
said, ``both.'' The goal is to keep the forest healthy and the harvest 
rate sustainable. That way, we will know how much timber can be cut 
while maintaining biological diversity. It will take some time yet to 
know if the plan will work. If it does, the Pacific Northwest forest 
plan will be a national model for multispecies ecosystem management. I 
certainly hope all my colleagues will recognize the significance; this 
administration is willing to take the heat to demonstrate that the 
choice between jobs and the environment is false.
  There are several other issues addressed in this conference report 
that are important to Washington State. It contains $3.5 million for 
the Park Service to conduct an environmental impact statement on the 
acquisition and removal of two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River. 
In May 1994, the Park Service completed a feasibility study on 
restoring salmon runs to the Elwha River pursuant to Public Law 102-
495, the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act. This 
study concludes it would be feasible to restore the salmon runs by 
removing the dams. Such course of action would enable the Federal 
Government, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and certain private 
interests to avoid lengthy, contentious, and expensive litigation.
  I recognize that proceeding with dam removal in future years would 
force the Federal Government to incur significant costs. However, I 
believe the costs of such action would be less than exposing the 
Government to a costly, court-imposed settlement. I have introduced 
legislation to authorize involvement on the part of the Bureau of 
Reclamation in the future. For now, I hope the Federal Government will 
continue to proceed with implementation of Public Law 102-495.

  H.R. 4602 also provides funds for several important local Federal 
Government obligations. For example, it includes $2.5 million under 
State and private forestry special projects to complete the Federal 
obligation to Skamania County, WA, related to construction of the 
Skamania Lodge. This is an extremely important item given the historic 
relationship of Skamania County to the Federal Government under the 
Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act. Non-Federal funds were raised 
and expended on this project with the understanding the Forest Service 
would contribute to community efforts. It is doubly important 
considering the reduction in timber production on the Gifford Pinchot 
National Forest, which comprises over 85 percent of the county 
landbase.
  In addition, the conference report includes $3.3 million to continue 
work at the Johnston Ridge Observatory at Mount St. Helens National 
Volcanic Monument. This amount should be sufficient for the agency to 
complete all work on the facility except road viewpoints, trailheads, 
and backcountry facilities. In the first 7 months, it was open, 800,000 
people visited the Coldwater Visitor Center. Overall, 3.3 million 
visitors saw the monument during 1993. During this time, a shuttle bus 
service has been operated enabling people to reach Johnston Ridge. 
However, full road and parking facilities have not been completed. Such 
facilities will be necessary to accommodate anticipated visitation to 
Johnston Ridge.
  Finally, there are funds in the bill to address several land 
acquisition projects that will ensure important conservation goals are 
met. In the Alpine Lakes area, $3.105 million will be used to acquire 
two sections of land form the Plum Creek Timber Co., L.P., a willing 
seller. These lands are part of the last undisturbed north-south 
migration corridor from many species.
  The sum of $1.4 million is provided to acquire lands from a willing 
seller adjacent to the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge; the Fish and 
Wildlife Service has concluded a purchase agreement in this regard.
  The sum of $1.1 million is included to acquire lands in the Skagit 
Wild and Scenic River management area from a willing seller. This 
acquisition will help conserve winter forage habitat for the largest 
population of bald eagles in the lower 48 States.
  The sum of $440,000 is included to acquire lands in the White Salmon 
Wild and Scenic management area. These funds are to be used to purchase 
the 37-acre Tillotson property, a critical tract that hosts sensitive 
late successional species such as the pileated woodpecker, the gray 
squirrel, and the bald eagle. This parcel is available under a short-
term purchase agreement that expires in fiscal year 1995. The funds 
provided are consistent with the Forest Service-approved appraised 
value for this property.
  Mr. President, funds are also included to acquire lands on Lopez 
Island, at Fishtrap Lake, the Black River, the Olympic National Forest, 
and the Columbia Gorge. I am grateful to the chairman for the inclusion 
of these funds. They are critical to the conservation goals of the 
people of Washington State.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] has been hit particularly 
hard by spending reductions. This is truly unfortunate, as it offers 
the best opportunity for nuts and bolts conservation activities. For 
example, the I-90 corridor in the Cascade Mountains is comprised of 
checkerboard ownership in some of the most biologically diverse old 
growth forests of the region. LWCF funds could be used to consolidate 
Federal ownership to ensure wildlife conservation and recreational 
opportunities are maintained.
  As I mentioned, the bill includes funding to acquire land in the 
Silver Creek drainage. However, funds are scarce, and this project only 
represents the tip of the iceberg. I encourage the Forest Service to 
work with the principal landowner in the corridor to determine whether 
a comprehensive land exchange is possible. This would be the best way 
to protect the corridor and relieve pressure on scarce LWCF resources.
  Mr. President, there are many more important provisions in H.R. 4602. 
Every State with significant public lands, every State with an interest 
in energy conservation, every State with a national park needs this 
conference report to pass. It is a good, tough agreement. It reflects 
our need for tight purse strings, but it also supports so many worthy 
programs. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report 
on H.R. 4602.


     statement on the fiscal year 1995 interior appropriations bill

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4602, the Interior appropriations bill and has found that the bill 
is under its 602(b) budget authority allocation by $4 million and under 
its 602(b) outlay allocation by $138,000.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Byrd, and 
the distinguished ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator 
Nickles, on all their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Interior appropriations bill and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at the 
appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                                BILL HISTORY--H.R. 4602, FISCAL YEAR 1995 INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS                                                               
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]                                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   President's request                  House-passed                   Senate-reported                   Senate-passed                      Conference          
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Bill summary          Budgetauthority                                                                                                                                                    
                                                 Outlays      BudgetAuthority     Outlays      BudgetAuthority     Outlays      BudgetAuthority     Outlays      BudgetAuthority      Outlays   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                                                                                                                                           
    New spending in bill...       13,339,147       9,010,358       13,139,352       8,875,354       13,016,647       8,803,328       13,019,580       8,797,418       13,142,286       8,852,365
    Permanent advances.....          375,000               0          375,000               0          375,000               0          375,000               0          375,000               0
    Outlays from prior                                                                                                                                                                          
     years.................               --       5,057,573               --       5,057,573               --       5,057,573               --       5,057,573               --       5,057,573
    Supplemental...........                0           5,924                0           5,924                0           5,924                0           5,924                0          5,924 
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal,                                                                                                                                                                               
         discretionary.....       13,714,147      14,073,855       13,514,352      13,938,851       13,391,647      13,866,825       13,394,580      13,860,915       13,517,286      13,915,862
                            ====================================================================================================================================================================
Mandatory totals:                                                                                                                                                                               
    Mandatory spending in                                                                                                                                                                       
     bill..................           60,575          53,481           60,575          53,481           60,575          53,481           55,675          48,581           55,675          48,581
    Budget resolution                                                                                                                                                                           
     adjustment............              425             519              425             519              425             519            5,325           5,419            5,325           5,419
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, mandatory           61,000          54,000           61,000          54,000           61,000          54,000           61,000          54,000           61,000         54,000 
                            ====================================================================================================================================================================
Bill totals................       13,775,147      14,127,855       13,575,352      13,992,851       13,452,647      13,920,825       13,455,580      13,914,915       13,578,286      13,969,862
602(b) allocation..........       13,586,000      13,921,000       13,586,000      13,921,000       13,586,000      13,921,000       13,586,000      13,921,000       13,582,000      13,970,000
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Difference.............          189,147         206,855          -10,648          71,851         -133,353            -175         -130,420          -6,085           -3,714            -138
                            ====================================================================================================================================================================
Defense....................                0               0                0               0                0               0                0               0                0               0
International Affairs......                0               0                0               0                0               0                0               0                0               0
Domestic discretionary.....       13,714,147      14,073,855       13,514,352      13,938,851       13,391,647      13,866,825       13,394,580      13,860,915       13,517,286      13,915,993
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            the importance of coal research and development

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman, ranking member, 
and the members of the Interior appropriations conference committee for 
providing $155 million for Energy Department research and development 
funds for coal, an amount considerably higher than the $128 million 
sought in the administration's budget request. I have worked with the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that H.r. 4602 provides 
sufficient funding for coal research and development because of its 
importance to Pennsylvania and the Nation.
  The energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995 
contained sizeable increases in Energy Department funding for a diverse 
group of energy sources, such as solar, geothermal, hydropower, and 
hydrogen. It is important to study applications of these energy 
sources, but with coal our Nation's most abundant energy resource, 
Congress should not underestimate the importance of continuing research 
on environmentally beneficial uses of coal.
  There is no question about the indispensable nature of the coal 
industry in the United States. Especially when one considers our 
Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources, including foreign oil 
cartels, coal remains an absolute necessity.
  In considering this conference report, Congress should note that the 
United States has a 300-year supply of coal. Further, coal is a proven 
source of energy, as evidenced by the fact that 56 percent of 
electricity is currently generated from coal.
  As any Pennsylvanian knows, coal represents jobs. According to a coal 
industry study, each mining job is supported by 11 other individuals, 
meaning that this abundant natural resource helps countless families 
put food on the table, pay the mortgage, and send their children to 
school.
  Pennsylvania's coal mining jobs have declined from 35,000 in 1979 to 
only 12,659 in 1992. But coal's future may be brighter as a result of 
the research and development funding in this legislation. Electric 
utilities across the Nation are relying on clean coal technology 
derived from a research program that Congress created in recent years 
and funds annually through this appropriations act. Under the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 and with adequate funding, even more utilities 
will be using such beneficial technology.
  Much of the valuable research on clean and efficient uses for coal is 
performed at the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center. Working with 
private sector partners, the center has made much progress on projects 
designed to evaluate new uses for coal and to promote environmentally 
beneficial methods of burning it. I would note that the center suffered 
a tragic loss this month when several of its key officials and 
researchers died in the September 8, 1994, plane crash at Pittsburgh as 
they returned from a Chicago conference on clean coal technologies. I 
know that their dedication continues to live on at the center and that 
we shall continue to see quality research and development projects from 
this valued Pittsburgh institution.
  Mr. President, I would reiterate the importance of funding research 
on all types of energy sources and urge my colleagues to support the 
Interior Department appropriations conference report, which continues 
support for our Nation's most abundant energy resource through coal 
research and development.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague 
from West Virginia for his leadership in guiding this bill both through 
the Senate and the conference committee. I especially would like to 
applaud his careful consideration of the options for funding the 
National Endowment for the Arts and for deciding on a less damaging 
across-the-board reduction of 2 percent rather than the previous 5 
percent targeted reductions.
  The final appropriations level will still allow the Endowment to 
continue, substantially, its beneficial work in supporting arts and 
culture in every corner of every State of the Nation.
  The NEA is a modest agency; one whose successes are pervasive but 
difficult to measure. Throughout its history, it has provided critical 
seed money to aspiring young artists, newly created dance companies, 
and local arts centers. Indeed, Federal contribution to the arts have 
reached into the most destitute inner cities, and the most remote rural 
areas.
  In my mind, this is the most important mission of the NEA. It brings 
the arts to areas of the country that, without NEA support, would do 
without. Vermonters have always valued the arts, but I highly doubt 
many of our Nation's renown artists and arts companies would travel to 
Vermont if it weren't for the support of the NEA.
  Thus, it is a shame that our yearly consideration of funding for the 
NEA is reduced to assaults upon the agency because of the controversy 
generated by some questionable performance, past or present. Yet, all 
the controversy is about a minuscule number of unfortunate incidents--
approximately 10 grants out of the over 100,000 issued since the NEA's 
creation in 1965.
  I believe the NEA's work is valuable and worthy of Federal support. 
If only the arts touched more Americans, maybe our country would be a 
better place with fewer drugs, less crime, and more self-esteem. As 
founder and vice-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I have seen 
first-hand the effects the arts have had on children through our visits 
with the Dance Theater of Harlem, the New York Public Theater, and our 
annual art competition. Those children strengthen my belief in the 
arts, and the work of the NEA.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there was no vote on the bill when it passed 
the Senate. Senators do want to vote on the conference report.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am informed that we have at least one Senator who 
wishes to come and speak briefly on the bill before we vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I hope he will not be too tardy and we can 
dispose of this bill quickly.
  But, in the face of that fact, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I did not intend to come and speak on this 
conference report but felt, on reflection, that I wanted to do that.
  I would agree with the comments that have been made about the value 
of the work of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the 
ranking member on this subcommittee. I know they have worked hard on 
these issues, they care a great deal about these issues, and there is 
not enough money to go around. That is a fact.
  We are dealing with discretionary funding, a category in which there 
have been real cuts--cuts to levels below last year's spending--time 
after time after time. So I understand the dilemma. We have unlimited 
needs and limited resources.
  I must say, however, I was disappointed when I saw this conference 
report come back from the conference and I want to explain why.
  I think there is a need out there that is unmet in a very significant 
way. That deals especially with the question of Indian health, and most 
especially with the question of the Federal Government's trust 
responsibility to protect native American children. I want to talk 
about that for just a couple of minutes.
  I do not raise this issue to be critical of the chairman. I 
understand what happened. We went to conference and the House prevailed 
on a number of issues, and the result was there was less money for some 
of the things that represented the priorities in the Senate bill.
  I had worked with the chairman, the staff, and others to put just a 
couple of million dollars in this piece of legislation, as it passed 
the Senate, to deal with Indian child abuse issues in the Aberdeen 
region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I was very hopeful that we 
would be able to keep that in conference. Regrettably, we did not.
  I am not here to blame anybody for that, but I am here to express 
profound disappointment that this happened. At least one of the reasons 
it must have happened is that, when the bill came back from conference, 
it had $8 million more for the National Endowments for the Arts and the 
Humanities than we had passed in the Senate version. It has millions of 
dollars more in a whole range of other areas, for museums and other 
issues.
  But it excludes a number of other things the Senate supported. 
Especially important to me was a couple of million dollars the Senate 
put in to address the issue of child abuse and neglect on Indian 
reservations.
  I would like to take just a moment to describe why that was important 
and why tomorrow, when this conference report has been sent to the 
President for his signature, those needs still will be important and 
Indian children still will be at risk.
  About 2 or 3 weeks ago, I was on a reservation in North Dakota 
talking to the young woman in charge of this issue, as director of 
social services, dealing with child protection issues such as child 
abuse and neglect, including physical and sexual abuse of Indian 
children.
  Let me tell you what I saw in those offices. And I knew about this 
situation because this same young woman had testified at a hearing of 
the Indian Affairs Committee that I chaired about a month before. In 
fact, during the hearing, she broke down crying, this experienced 
social worker, because, to paraphrase what she said: You know, just the 
littlest thing during the day is a struggle. Just getting a ride for 
somebody who has to go to a clinic, trying to beg a ride because we do 
not have a car to get some young person to a clinic someplace. Just the 
smallest thing is a problem for us. We have files sitting on the 
floor--files covering 2 and 3 years' worth of reports of sexual abuse 
against children, physical abuse against children, neglect of 
children--and I don't have any idea whether they are even being 
investigated because there have been 13 or 14 people in and out of this 
two-person office for 2 years. There is no system. There is no file 
system. We know someone reported a child being physically abused, and 
we do not know whether that child--age 2, age 4, age 6, age 8--is still 
in that home, being abused, because we do not even know whether the 
report was investigated. And that is the problem.''
  Let me tell you how I got involved and interested in this. I met a 
young girl named Tamara Demaris one day on the Standing Rock Sioux 
Reservation. She had been living with her grandfather, Reginald 
Burnthorse.
  I read about this tragic young child, age 2, put in a foster home by 
a social worker. This social worker handled about 150 cases. The 
standard caseload is about 15 or 20 in most rural States in this 
country. This social worker had 150 cases to follow. This little girl 
was taken out of a home that was unsafe and put in a foster home. 
Except, because the social worker was handling 150 cases, she did not 
have any capability to investigate the foster home where she was 
putting this young 2-year-old girl. Was it safe? Was it a good home? 
Would this child be treated well?
  Well, Tamara was put in this new home and it turned out to be a home 
with alcohol and parties and eventually child abuse. Tamara, age 2, was 
beaten, her arm was broken, her nose was broken; her hair was pulled 
out by the roots in a fit of violence by Tamara's foster parents, 
because the person responsible for this 2-year-old child, the social 
worker, did not have the time to investigate where she was placing the 
2-year-old. We did not have enough money to do that. We did not have 
enough social workers to be sure that our responsibility to protect the 
life of a 2-year-old was being met. It just did not fit into the 
priorities; we did not have enough money.
  Well, on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation, they now have 
some more resources that I recently helped them get, so there are more 
people investigating where they place these children.
  But I on that reservation and others the needs still are unmet.
  Let me tell you just about a young woman that I learned about on the 
Fort Totten Reservation a couple weeks ago. And this is not altogether 
unusual.
  A 15-year-old girl, who now is missing, stole a car and left. This is 
a young girl who has been in the social service system on that 
reservation since she was just a tot able to walk. She is an alcoholic. 
She had a baby at age 14. Her mother is dead from alcohol. Her father 
is in prison, an alcoholic who committed crimes in the stupor of 
alcohol. And all of her brothers and sisters are placed out in other 
homes. This young girl has been in trouble and addicted to alcohol for 
years, has a baby, and now is missing--and she is only 15.
  Is it unusual? No. I saw file, after file, after file of that kind of 
a problem.
  And the Presiding Officer, (Mr. Campbell) knows well of these 
problems. The Presiding Officer knows that we have all of these unmet 
needs and he, more than anybody in this Chamber, has fought to try to 
meet them.
  And by talking about them, I am not suggesting that somehow this 
problem is unique to native Americans or that the problem of child 
abuse is unique with respect to other vexing problems. But I must say 
this: those who live on this Nation's reservations are so shorted, in 
my judgment, in the provision of basic resources that we are failing to 
meet the Federal Government's trust responsibilities--including the 
responsibility to investigate foster homes and do the other things 
necessary to make sure that these children are safe.

  A social worker on the Fort Berthold Reservation told me that in a 2-
week period, eight young people attempted suicide. Something is 
fundamentally wrong. Something is fundamentally wrong when we trade off 
money to protect America's children, especially America's children who 
are most vulnerable, to put another $8 million into the arts.
  I have supported the arts. They may not be able to count on that much 
longer, however. I have been here a number of years and supported the 
arts because I think much of a society's legacy is represented by the 
arts. If you go to Europe, ask yourself what is left of the 14th 
century in Europe? Some old duffer walking around with a long beard? 
No, they did not live that long. Their art, their culture, that is what 
is left. I support the arts.
  I have always thought that those who say let us slash this, let us 
spend nothing on the arts were being shortsighted. But I must say this: 
when those who support the arts and humanities do it so strongly that 
they do it at the expense of a few million dollars that is needed to 
address the issue of sexual abuse or physical abuse against young, 
defenseless, innocent children for whom we have a trust responsibility, 
then I say I am not sure I am in their corner anymore. That is not 
trading with the kind of balance we ought to be trading with to meet 
real human needs in this country.
  I could not let this moment pass without saying that this conference 
report, in my judgment, makes tradeoffs--tradeoffs apparently the House 
insisted upon--that do not reflect my priorities with respect to where 
our limited resources ought to go.
  Having said all that, let me hasten to add once again that I am not 
standing here to suggest, somehow, the chairman of the Senate conferees 
has let us down or the ranking member has let us down. That is not my 
message. When you go to conference, you compromise. That is the 
process. I understand all that.
  But I am saying, in my judgment, that the compromise on the issue of 
funding for the arts, as a tradeoff for other things that I think are 
critically necessary for some very vulnerable young children in this 
country, is not a compromise that makes sense to me. I hope we will 
decide, if not this year then next year or the year after, that it is 
not a question of how much we have but rather how much we must devote 
to protect the lives of these kids.
  When you look at a 2-year-old or 4-year-old living in conditions that 
are dangerous to their lives, it is not a question of saying we cannot 
afford it. That is not an answer that is acceptable. We can afford it. 
We must afford it. We have an obligation to afford the resources to 
make sure those children are safe and to make sure we do what is 
necessary to fulfill our responsibility for the lives of those 
children.
  So, let me again say I hope in the next year or the next 2 years we 
will decide that some of these priorities insisted upon by the House 
conferees are not priorities we share and not priorities we will 
accept. And next year, when we go through this process again, I hope I 
will be able to stand on this floor and say we made a difference, a 
real difference, in the lives of children. There are not enough 
resources, in the broader scheme, for the Indian Health Service or to 
address the kinds of problems I just described.
  I have only given a thumbnail sketch. I could give chapter and verse, 
case after case after case, and it would break your heart to hear it.
  We talk about statistics and we talk about philosophy and we talk 
about a lot of things on the floor in this Congress, but it all relates 
to real people suffering real problems. Children are the innocent 
victims of policies that do not do enough to protect them, when they 
and everyone else in this country should be able to expect that we will 
meet our obligations in that regard.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment our friend and 
colleague from North Dakota for expressing some real concerns about 
some of his Native American constituents. I happen to share some of 
those concerns.
  The Senator talked about some actual cases where people have been 
abused sexually and had drug problems. We find that all too prevalent 
on some of the reservations and some of the Indian lands we have in our 
States across the country. We tried to address that. In the Senate we 
did have an earmark, a couple of million dollars, trying to address it.
  I might make sure my colleague is aware we did put some language in 
the conference report that says IHS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
``should prepare a coordinated plan for addressing the unmet need for 
child sexual abuse treatment and prevention programs for American 
Indians and Alaska Natives, along with cost estimates, and the report 
should be delivered to the House and Senate legislative and 
Appropriations Committees within 90 days of enactment * * *.'' We lost 
the Senate's earmark, which was targeted toward Indian child sexual 
abuse.
  I want to tell my friend and colleague from North Dakota I share some 
of those same concerns. I will tell my friend from North Dakota, too, I 
have a horror story I could tell. As a matter of fact, I have a lot 
more than one, and they are sickening. I do not know if by 
appropriating money it is going to go away. I do not know by calling 
for a study by IHS and BIA, the problem is going to go away. But I know 
there are problems.
  I found outside an Indian school in my State, Riverside, where a 
teenager under the age of 16 was abused significantly--under the 
influence of alcohol and so on. And it bothers me. And I have given 
those officials maybe kind of a hard time trying to clean up their act 
to where those things would not be repeated.
  I also tell my friend and colleague, though, I want to correct him if 
he thinks there is a tradeoff between the arts and Indian Health 
Services because that is not the case. That was not the case in any of 
the negotiations. Let me bring my colleague up to date to where we are 
on Indian Health Service. The administration, originally their budget 
proposed cutting Indian health services by $244 million, a reduction 
from 1994. And I expressed outrage. You can ask other colleagues on our 
committee, when they testified and brought their budget before the 
Senate, I said, ``How in the world--that is a 12.5-percent reduction 
when Indian health services have, probably, the most deplorable health 
care delivery system in this country.'' When I say ``deplorable,'' I am 
talking about quality of health care. It is pathetic. It is some of the 
worst health care in this country. It is a good example, in my opinion, 
if you want to look at socialized medicine, national health care, 
whatever you want to call it, that the quality of health care is 
terrible.
  The solution may not be throwing away more money, more money toward 
the programs. But the administration proposed cutting it by $244 
million. We expressed enough outrage that they came back and they 
reduced the reduction to only $124 million, which still, I think, is 
about a 5-percent decrease. We ended up with an increase of $23 
million, almost $24 million, which is not much, only a little over 1 
percent in almost a $2 billion program; but the administration was 
going to cut it $244 million. That is not just for Indian children. 
That is for all the Indians in this country.
  So we did not do as much as I think we should do. But I assure my 
colleague it was not because we were trading off money for the National 
Endowment for the Arts or anything else. I might mention on National 
Endowment for the Arts, the Senate passed a reduction of 5 percent; the 
House passed a reduction of 2 percent. That was one of the real sticky 
points in conference. Ultimately the House prevailed, the 2 percent 
reduction was agreed upon. Congressman Yates felt very strongly about 
that, and that was one of the final things in conference, and 
ultimately it was agreed upon. But it had nothing to do whatsoever with 
the Indian Health Service.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. NICKLES. Just one second. Some of us did fight, so my colleague 
will know, we did fight energetically to restore the Indian Health 
Services' funds. We did reduce the cuts that were proposed by the 
administration and have a modest increase. But if the original proposal 
would have gone forward with a $244 million cut, which is a 12.5-
percent reduction, or even the administration's modified budget which 
they sent up which still called for $124 million reduction compared to 
last year--no increase for inflation or anything--I think the Senator's 
outrage would be even stronger.
  Finally, my concluding comment is again I strongly share the outrage 
and disgust of the Senator from North Dakota at some of the problems we 
have on our Indian reservations, including substance abuse, alcohol 
abuse, sexual abuse, and particularly amongst minors. We have to do 
something about it. I am not sure we are going to solve that problem by 
appropriating $2 million or $10 million, but I tell my colleague and 
friend I will be happy to do anything with him to help try to alleviate 
and solve some of those problems because I recognize there are lives 
that are being destroyed every day. We need to do a better job. 
Frankly, under Indian Health Services, under BIA, under some of these 
schools, they have been pathetic failures and we need significant 
improvements. I am not sure dollars are the improvements, but maybe 
some other alternatives for Indian youth across the country would be 
welcome. And I will be happy to work with my colleague, the Presiding 
Officer, and the chairman of the committee to try to make some of those 
changes. I appreciate the Senator's bringing this to our attention.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will make a couple of comments, and then I know the 
chairman wants to move this piece of legislation and I know there is 
another Member who wants to speak.
  The Senator is correct, the administration, I think, erred in its 
original budget request for the Indian Health Service. I think in fact 
the administration admitted that they erred, and they sent a budget 
modification back to the Congress. But, notwithstanding their 
modification and notwithstanding what we currently are funding, I am 
saying we are still woefully short.
  The Senator makes the point, ``I am not sure money will solve it.'' 
Let me respond to that.
  I was on a reservation not too long ago. They are trying to do 
alcoholism treatment in a building that would be deemed uninhabitable 
anyplace else in the country. They simply do not have the money. They 
do not have the resources.
  When you have the kind of alcoholism and addiction rates you have in 
some of these areas, if you cannot provide the resources to hire 
counselors and others to treat people, you are never going to solve 
these problems. I agree that we ought not throw money at things. But if 
we do not have the fundamental resources to deal with addiction, hire 
social workers to deal with child abuse, or put children in safe foster 
homes, then we do not have a chance of thoughtfully discussing what the 
long-term solution is.
  We often pass legislation, as we did in 1990 with the Indian Child 
Protection and Family Violence Protection Act, that makes a wonderful 
authorization bill. I was not in the Senate in 1990, I was in the 
House. But I guess if I went back and read all the debate on the 1990 
act, I would find people talked about what a wonderful thing that 
legislation is. But the problem is, if you do not fund it, if you do 
not have the resources to implement the Indian Child Protection Act, 
children do not get protection.
  It is not my intention to tell a horror story on the floor of the 
Senate about a particular tragedy, or half a dozen tragedies. It is 
only my intention to say there is a recurring, relentless condition out 
there that threatens the lives of children, and I do not intend to 
stand here and allow us not to address that, in one way or another. We 
address almost everything else. But this is more important than most of 
the other things we are talking about in this legislation, at least in 
the lives of those children who may not live much longer unless we 
address these problems.
  So I am hoping that, with the cooperation of the chairman and the 
ranking member and the Presiding Officer and others who care about 
this, we actually can begin to make some progress in these areas.
  Let me make one final comment. The ranking member is absolutely 
right, that taking the budget request for Indian health and building 
that to an increase over last year is some feat. I would compliment the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member for doing that. That 
is not easy because, as I said when I started, this is being squeezed 
like a lemon, this area of discretionary spending. I fully understand 
the dilemma of trying to meet unlimited wants with limited resources.
  But I just say, when we begin listing the priorities, whether it is 
arts and humanities, or a hundred other things you can name that are 
important to someone in this room, I hope somewhere near the top will 
be a priority that says that when the lives of children are threatened 
and they are vulnerable and cannot help themselves, then we have a 
responsibility to intervene. Not with words, not with authorizations, 
but with the kind of resources that will give Native American children 
an opportunity to overcome the circumstances and conditions in which 
they now find themselves.
  Again, let me thank the chairman for his indulgence in allowing me to 
take this time. I do hope that when we go through this process next 
year and the conference report comes back, I am going to be able to 
stand up and talk about what the chairman and I and the ranking member 
and others did that was significantly different from what we have done 
in the past, that will provide some bright hope in the lives of some 
young children in this country who desperately need that hope.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me say I sympathize with the concerns 
that have been expressed by the able Senator from North Dakota. He has 
been zealous in his work in this regard. And upon several occasions he 
called the matter to my attention and reminded me of it. And I can 
appreciate his sadness with respect to what the conferees did. But he 
also stated a truism when he pointed out that discretionary funding is 
being squeezed like a lemon.
  When compared to the discretionary spending levels that would have 
been provided under the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, the amounts 
available for discretionary spending in fiscal year 1995 were reduced 
by $500 million in outlays as a result of the Exon-Grassley amendment 
to the 1995 budget resolution. And this is just a drop in the bucket as 
compared to the pain that will come next year and other outyears as a 
result of that amendment.
  In fiscal year 1996, discretionary outlays are reduced $5.4 billion. 
So right now, up front next year, Mr. Chairman, when I have to make 
allocations to the various subcommittees, I will be faced with that sad 
fact.
  This year $500 million. Next year, 10 times that budget. Over 10 
times that budget. Over 10 times as deep a reduction in discretionary 
funding allocations, $5.4 billion below the amounts recommended in the 
1993 budget reconciliation as a result of the Exon-Grassley amendment.
  Over the 5 years, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, the total reduction 
will be $13 billion in outlays.
  Now, when the budget resolution came to the Senate, it was $26 
billion. The cut in the committee amounted to $26 billion in 
discretionary funding. And we went to conference. When the budget 
conferees met from both Houses that $26 billion reduction in 
discretionary outlays was reduced by half. So it actually amounted to, 
in the final analysis, $13 billion. Even operating on the basis of a 
freeze. And that is where we are. A freeze over the next several years. 
But this is $13 billion below the freeze.
  You know how eager Members are to be able to say to their 
constituents that they have cast economy votes. They have made cuts. 
And as I said to the Senate, when we had the resolution before the 
Senate, the budget resolution, I have said it on previous hearings, 
once you pass this budget resolution and it comes back from conference 
and is adopted, you have cut right then. You have cut the 
appropriations. You will not have to wait 1 week, 1 month, 6 months. 
You have cut, when you cast that vote.
  Therefore, that's the situation we are confronted with. It is going 
to be worse. It is going to be worse next year. I know that many 
Members are going to be disappointed when the appropriations bill comes 
along. But what goes around, comes around. And when those massive cuts 
are administered in the Budget Committee, as they were last year, and 
they are sustained throughout the course of the votes on the budget 
bills in both Houses and in the conference, then will come the pain.
  It reminds me of a quotation from Shakespeare's ``Hamlet'':

       A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and 
     eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig].
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments I want to reflect on 
what the chairman of the full committee of the subcommittee has just 
said, and my colleagues here on the floor that express frustration 
about this particular Interior appropriations bill.
  I think the uniqueness of this dialog this morning is the diversity 
that has been the appropriations bill, from Indian Health Services to 
the issue I'm going to talk about, and that is the money to build roads 
to log public timber.
  And in that diversity we have some very real problems. But that is 
the nature of the Interior appropriations bill that we have to deal 
with. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd, and 
the ranking member, Senator Nickles, have done their very best to deal 
with the limitations that they are put under by discretionary spending 
in the budget process.
  I am one Senator who for a good number of years has expressed my 
concern that we let entitlement programs go on automatic pilot. And we 
shift the money from discretionary programs over to the entitlement 
programs.
  We go home to our States and tell certain constituencies that budgets 
have been cut, and yet they look at the sum of the total Federal budget 
and they do not understand because it does not appear to have been cut. 
It has gone up by hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The deficit 
seems to get larger, and oftentimes does, and the debt certainly does 
get larger.
  And there is a contradiction here that we are sending forth in our 
communication to our constituents that doesn't make a lot of sense to 
them. And while we may understand the internal workings of the budget 
process, I would have to tell you that it does not make a lot of sense 
to me either that we have good public policy, Indian Health is one of 
many of those public policies that make sense, and yet we have 
constantly cut in the name of a different form of funding that we are 
politically less than courageous in our willingness to deal with. And 
that is, of course, entitlement programs that somehow have developed a 
sense of sacredness around here, that nobody wants to walk forward and 
deal with.
  The point I would like to make that's embodied in H.R. 4602, which is 
the Interior appropriations bill that we are debating now, is the issue 
of Forest Service roadless area entry and the funding necessary.
  Mr. President, I noted that the conference report on this bill has 
reduced the level of road funding below that needed to accomplish the 
full timber sales program that is part of the public policy of this 
country; that is within the forest plans on a forest-by-forest basis 
across this country.
  Accomplishing the timber objective certainly will be a great deal 
more difficult, and probably impossible. And while I know there are 
some interest groups that would cheer that, there are a good many 
communities in my State and your State in which the economy will shut 
down and people will be without work because they had built their 
economies on a forest plan that allowed a certain number of board feet 
of timber to be harvested annually. And now the Congress, in their 
policy, by their funding is saying, ``No, we're not going to let that 
happen, because we're going to disallow the necessary amount of money 
to build the roads to enter the areas in which the timber would be 
logged.''
  Accomplishing the timber objective clearly is not going to be met 
here, and the conference report language will not allow it.
  Now I've been troubled that roadless area entry continues to not be 
addressed. And though we have completed the forest plans, and we are 
going now in my State, and probably in yours Mr. President, into the 
second cycle of planning, and we have not even met the goals and the 
objectives of the first cycle of planning, and we are talking 10-year 
cycles, and the impacts are very real.
  On July 26, when the Senate originally considered the passage of this 
bill, I addressed this concern along with Senator Byrd and Senator 
Nickles in a colloquy stating the intent to give the Forest Service as 
much flexibility as possible to enter roadless areas, as directed by 
their forest plans.
  In a letter dated June 9, Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas 
described the adverse impact of a prohibition on roadless area entry. 
He expressed the concern at that time, as the primary person 
responsible for the carrying out of our forest plan, the Chief of the 
Forest Service.
  He particularly noted the importance of access to released roadless 
areas for the purposes of remedying forest disease, the fuel buildup 
that has threatened and caused the massive forest fires that we have 
had throughout the intermountain west this year, and in the whole issue 
of forest health.
  In other words, if man cannot get into the forest to apply reasonable 
management practices, we run the risk of what has happened in the 
Pacific Northwest and primarily the intermountain area this year. 
Massive unchecked forest fires that have burned unbelievable acreages, 
at tremendously intense heat. Heat that has actually destroyed the land 
and the ground itself. That ground will not be productive for years to 
come, largely because of forest practices and man's ability to do, or 
not do, certain things that this appropriation bill, I hope, would 
address and yet has failed to address this year.
  We have forest fires burning today in Idaho, as we speak, in an 
unprecedented way. Very seldom in the history of our State have we had 
fires burning in the last week of September or the first week of 
October. We have lost hundred of thousands of acres this year of 
valuable trees, habitat, watershed, all of it very damaging to the 
environment. All of it attributable to our inability, or our 
unwillingness to manage our own public land resource.
  The Payette National Forest in my State, are suggesting to us now, 
that these fires will go unchecked, until we have our first snowstorm 
this winter. Now that is almost impossible for people to understand 
here on the floor of the Senate, but that is reality.
  Part of the reason is we have not entered those roadless areas, even 
though our forest plans have suggested we should, and we have not 
extracted the trees. We have seen a huge buildup of fuel.
  What am I talking about? I am suggesting that the normal capacity on 
an acre-by-acre basis of these forested lands to sustain tree growth 
was somewhere around 10 or 12 trees per acre. Over the last 50 years, 
because of our ability to put out fires, we have allowed a tree growth 
in some instances near 300 or 400 or 500 trees per acre.
  Then along comes a decade of drought. The trees are tremendously 
stressed, subject to disease, and they burn. And they are burning now. 
And we cannot even put the fires out, and we have spent millions of 
dollars. We have lost lives. We lost several lives in your State, this 
year, Mr. President; several of them from my State of Idaho. We have 
lost more human beings this year fighting forest fires than we have in 
recent history. Can that be attributable to public policy?
  Tragically enough, it may be. History may say that is the cause.
  Well, I believe I made my point.
  The Chief has indicated that new road construction is critical toward 
addressing wildfire, disease infestation, forest management problems, 
and forest health. I recognized that on June 26, as did the ranking 
member and the Chairman. And yet this bill does not reflect that 
interest at all. Only 29 percent of the road appropriations is for new 
roads, construction, and 71 percent is for reconstruction of existing 
roads. Only a few miles of new roads are planned in roadless areas in 
the 1995 appropriation. The forest plan is the guiding document 
providing direction for new roads on how we manage our roadless areas, 
and yet we are abrogating our responsibility to the forest planning 
process, and to the new concepts of ecosystem management, and to the 
new vision that the Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, is 
attempting to articulate to our country. We have not taken heed to his 
call. We are not addressing the problems of our forests. And they will 
continue to burn, and we will continue to lose millions of acres of 
valuable public land and public habitat for wildlife because we lack 
the vision in a very limited budget to direct the appropriations in the 
way I think many of us would feel necessary and appropriate.
  This is an important budget to my State. While I have expressed 
concern over this frustration, I will support the appropriations bill 
that I am addressing because it has such powerful impact upon my State 
that is owned by the amount of 63 percent of the total land mass by the 
citizens of our country.
  So this budget has very real impact, as the ranking member, Senator 
Nickles, and as certainly the chairman, Senator Byrd, know. I would 
hope in the coming years we can do better. If we do not, our forests 
will burn and someday we will awaken to ask the question: What 
happened? Why did it happen? Why did somebody not do something about 
it?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Idaho dealing with the Forest Service, dealing with fires that we 
have, his urging our support of the urgent supplemental for $450 
million to replenish funds and also have a fund that can respond 
quickly to future fires.
  I also would echo his concern and his statements about our past 
practices of allowing some of the old forests to accumulate, which is 
nothing but fuel for future fires, instead of allowing those forests to 
be harvested. I think the Senator from Idaho is exactly correct. We 
have not done as much as we should in forest roads and harvesting old 
forests and timber in part because of lawsuits and in part because of 
endangered species. The Senator from Idaho has made an excellent 
statement, and I very much appreciate his input as well as his support.
  Mr. President, I do not know of anybody else who wishes to speak on 
this legislation. The yeas and nays have already been asked for, and I 
hope that we would vote on it in the very near future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  The conference report provides $13.2 billion in new budget authority 
and $8.9 billion in new outlays for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for fiscal year 1995.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the final bill totals $13.6 billion in 
budget authority and $14.0 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1995.
  The Senate subcommittee is $3.7 million in budget authority below its 
602(b) allocation and essentially at its outlays allocation.
  The conference report is $196.9 million in budget authority below and 
$157.9 million in outlays below the President's request.
  I appreciate the subcommittee's support for a number of ongoing 
projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico as it 
has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
disposition of the pending conference report, the Senate then proceed 
to consideration of the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill, 
H.R. 4539.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears 
none, and it is so ordered. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
conference report occur at the hour of 11:10 a.m.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________