[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12002-S12037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2306

   (Purpose: To authorize the establishment of the National African 
   American Museum within the Smithsonian Institution, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection to the pending 
committee amendment being set aside. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Pell, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2306.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
              TITLE ____--NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National African American 
     Museum Act''.

     SEC. ____02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the presentation and preservation of African American 
     life, art, history, and culture within the National Park 
     System and other Federal entities are inadequate;
       (2) the inadequate presentation and preservation of African 
     American life, art, history, and culture seriously restrict 
     the ability of the people of the United States, particularly 
     African Americans, to understand themselves and their past;
       (3) African American life, art, history, and culture 
     include the varied experiences of Africans in slavery and 
     freedom and the continued struggles for full recognition of 
     citizenship and treatment with human dignity;
       (4) in enacting Public Law 99-511, the Congress encouraged 
     support for the establishment of a commemorative structure 
     within the National Park System, or on other Federal lands, 
     dedicated to the promotion of understanding, knowledge, 
     opportunity, and equality for all people;
       (5) the establishment of a national museum and the 
     conducting of interpretive and educational programs, 
     dedicated to the heritage and culture of African Americans, 
     will help to inspire and educate the people of the United 
     States regarding the cultural legacy of African Americans and 
     the contributions made by African Americans to the society of 
     the United States; and
       (6) the Smithsonian Institution operates 15 museums and 
     galleries, a zoological park, and 5 major research 
     facilities, none of which is a national institution devoted 
     solely to African American life, art, history, or culture.

     SEC. ____03. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN 
                   MUSEUM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Smithsonian Institution a Museum, which shall be known as the 
     ``National African American Museum''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Museum is to provide--
       (1) a center for scholarship relating to African American 
     life, art, history, and culture;
       (2) a location for permanent and temporary exhibits 
     documenting African American life, art, history, and culture;
       (3) a location for the collection and study of artifacts 
     and documents relating to African American life, art, 
     history, and culture;
       (4) a location for public education programs relating to 
     African American life, art, history, and culture; and
       (5) a location for training of museum professionals and 
     others in the arts, humanities, and sciences regarding museum 
     practices related to African American life, art, history, and 
     culture.

     SEC. ____04. LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATIONAL 
                   AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM.

       The Board of Regents is authorized to plan, design, 
     reconstruct, and renovate the Arts and Industries Building of 
     the Smithsonian Institution to house the Museum.

     SEC. ____05. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUSEUM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Smithsonian 
     Institution the Board of Trustees of the National African 
     American Museum.
       (b) Composition and Appointment.--The Board of Trustees 
     shall be composed of 23 members as follows:
       (1) The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
       (2) An Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 
     designated by the Board of Regents.
       (3) Twenty-one individuals of diverse disciplines and 
     geographical residence who are committed to the advancement 
     of knowledge of African American art, history, and culture, 
     appointed by the Board of Regents, of whom 9 members shall be 
     from among individuals nominated by African American museums, 
     historically black colleges and universities, and cultural or 
     other organizations.
       (c) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Board of Trustees shall be appointed for terms 
     of 3 years. Members of the Board of Trustees may be 
     reappointed.
       (2) Staggered terms.--As designated by the Board of Regents 
     at the time of initial appointments under paragraph (3) of 
     subsection (b), the terms of 7 members shall expire at the 
     end of 1 year, the terms of 7 members shall expire at the end 
     of 2 years, and the terms of 7 members shall expire at the 
     end of 3 years.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall 
     not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in 
     which the original appointment was made. Any member appointed 
     to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term 
     for which the predecessor of the member was appointed shall 
     be appointed for the remainder of the term.
       (e) Noncompensation.--Except as provided in subsection (f), 
     members of the Board of Trustees shall serve without pay.
       (f) Expenses.--Members of the Board of Trustees shall 
     receive per diem, travel, and transportation expenses for 
     each day, including travel time, during which such members 
     are engaged in the performance of the duties of the Board of 
     Trustees in accordance with section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, with respect to employees serving intermittently 
     in the Government service.
       (g) Chairperson.--The Board of Trustees shall elect a 
     chairperson by a majority vote of the members of the Board of 
     Trustees.
       (h) Meetings.--The Board of Trustees shall meet at the call 
     of the chairperson or upon the written request of a majority 
     of its members, but shall meet not less than 2 times each 
     year.
       (i) Quorum.--A majority of the Board of Trustees shall 
     constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting business, but 
     a lesser number may receive information on behalf of the 
     Board of Trustees.
       (j) Voluntary Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the chairperson of the Board of 
     Trustees may accept for the Board of Trustees voluntary 
     services provided by a member of the Board of Trustees.

     SEC. ____06. DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUSEUM.

       The Board of Trustees shall--
       (1) recommend annual budgets for the Museum;
       (2) consistent with the general policy established by the 
     Board of Regents, have the sole authority to--
       (A) loan, exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of any part 
     of the collections of the Museum, but only if the funds 
     generated by such disposition are used for additions to the 
     collections of the Museum or for additions to the endowment 
     of the Museum;
       (B) subject to the availability of funds and the provisions 
     of annual budgets of the Museum, purchase, accept, borrow, or 
     otherwise acquire artifacts and other property for addition 
     to the collections of the Museum;
       (C) establish policy with respect to the utilization of the 
     collections of the Museum; and
       (D) establish policy regarding programming, education, 
     exhibitions, and research, with
      respect to the life and culture of African Americans, the 
     role of African Americans in the history of the United 
     States, and the contributions of African Americans to 
     society;

[[Page S12003]]

       (3) consistent with the general policy established by the 
     Board of Regents, have authority to--
       (A) provide for restoration, preservation, and maintenance 
     of the collections of the Museum;
       (B) solicit funds for the Museum and determine the purposes 
     to which such funds shall be used;
       (C) approve expenditures from the endowment of the Museum, 
     or of income generated from the endowment, for any purpose of 
     the Museum; and
       (D) consult with, advise, and support the Director in the 
     operation of the Museum;
       (4) establish programs in cooperation with other African 
     American museums, historically black colleges and 
     universities, historical societies, educational institutions, 
     and cultural and other organizations for the education and 
     promotion of understanding regarding African American life, 
     art, history, and culture;
       (5) support the efforts of other African American museums, 
     historically black colleges and universities, and cultural 
     and other organizations to educate and promote understanding 
     regarding African American life, art, history, and culture, 
     including--
       (A) the development of cooperative programs and 
     exhibitions;
       (B) the identification, management, and care of 
     collections;
       (C) the participation in the training of museum 
     professionals; and
       (D) creating opportunities for--
       (i) research fellowships; and
       (ii) professional and student internships;
       (6) adopt bylaws to carry out the functions of the Board of 
     Trustees; and
       (7) report annually to the Board of Regents on the 
     acquisition, disposition, and display of African American 
     objects and artifacts and on other appropriate matters.

     SEC. ____07. DIRECTOR AND STAFF.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Smithsonian 
     Institution, in consultation with the Board of Trustees, 
     shall appoint a Director who shall manage the Museum.
       (b) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution may--
       (1) appoint the Director and 5 employees of the Museum, 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing appointments in the competitive service; and
       (2) fix the pay of the Director and such 5 employees, 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates.

     SEC. ____08. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Arts and industries building.--The term ``Arts and 
     Industries Building'' means the building located on the Mall 
     at 900 Jefferson Drive, S.W. in Washington, the District of 
     Columbia.
       (2) Board of regents.--The term ``Board of Regents'' means 
     the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
       (3) Board of trustees.--The term ``Board of Trustees'' 
     means the Board of Trustees of the National African American 
     Museum established in section ____05(a).
       (4) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the National African 
     American Museum established under section ____03(a).

     SEC. ____09. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary only for costs directly relating to the operation 
     and maintenance of the Museum.

  Mr. SIMON. If I may have the attention of the managers of the bill--
if I may have the attention of the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from West Virginia. I would be willing to enter into an 
agreement for 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, or whatever time 
agreement you would like.
  Mr. GORTON. That is a wonderful offer on the part of the Senator from 
Illinois and is completely--I will put it in this fashion. I think that 
is a gracious offer on the part of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. It moved from ``wonderful'' to ``gracious.''
  Mr. GORTON. I think it is wonderful myself. I do have present on the 
floor the Senator from North Carolina who would want more time to amend 
if the amendment survives a motion to table.
  So if the Senator will agree, I will ask there be 30 minutes equally 
divided on the Simon amendment prior to the disposition of the motion 
to table, and that no second-degree amendment be permitted prior to the 
expiration of the 30 minutes and the disposition of the motion to 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator 
McCain, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Pell, and myself. It is an 
amendment that has passed the Senate on a previous occasion and would 
have passed the tail end of the last session, but it was stopped as 
some 50 or 60 bills all of a sudden were frozen as they moved ahead.
  This amendment says that we--it authorizes, does not appropriate any 
money. We do not appropriate a dollar in this, but authorizes that the 
Smithsonian can have a national African-American museum. There are two 
distinct groups of Americans whose history is, frankly, very different 
from those of us who are German-American or British-American or Danish-
American or whatever our background is, and that is Native Americans, 
American Indians, and African-Americans who came over here as slaves. I 
think it is important for us to understand our heritage, for all of us, 
no matter what our background, and also particularly for those who are 
of African-American heritage to take special pride in this.
  As I said, this does not appropriate one dollar at this point. That 
would have to be done at some time in the future when Congress feels it 
is wise to do so. But it would permit the Smithsonian to collect money 
from a foundation or from some private entity for this purpose.
  It also authorizes the Smithsonian to work with local museums around 
the Nation. We have a museum in Chicago that is a very fine local 
African-American museum. That is the kind of museum that they can work 
with. It is not that complicated.
  I know I have the opposition of my friend and colleague from North 
Carolina, Senator Helms. But I hope this body will accept this 
amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is with deep regret that I am going to 
have to oppose the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois, 
although I suspect, if I looked up rollcalls, that I would have voted 
for his proposal in previous Congresses.
  But, Mr. President, there just is not any money for this project now, 
and it is almost certain that there will not be any in the foreseeable 
future.
  I wish to emphasize the amendment is an authorization. We are dealing 
with an appropriations bill.
  The authorization bill is before the relevant committee. It has not 
been reported or recommended by that committee. The Smithsonian is now 
authorized to build a museum of the American Indian. Very large amounts 
of private money have been collected for that museum, but it is simply 
not possible to appropriate so much as a dollar for it in this bill.
  The Smithsonian is authorized to expand the Air and Space Museum in a 
significant number of facilities out near Dulles Airport. Planning has 
actually gone on that one, and money has been spent on that one. There 
is no way that we can fund its creation.
  By dint of very careful management and reductions in this bill, which 
have been objected to since the moment the bill's debate was begun, we 
got together a little bit more money so that the present Smithsonian 
can literally fix the roof, so that deferred maintenance, which must be 
accomplished, can be accomplished.
  The Smithsonian, together with the National Gallery of Art and a 
couple of other Federal cultural institutions and the National Park 
Service, are literally the only functions in this bill that do not have 
budget cuts from last year. But we cannot build another museum. We 
cannot build two museums we have already authorized. And there is 
nothing in a budget resolution leading to a balanced budget in the year 
2002 that indicates we are going to be able to do so between this day 
and that.
  So to pass this proposal is to make a promise we cannot keep, and, 
regrettably, I believe it to be irresponsible.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I fully support the position that has been 
taken by the distinguished Senator from Washington. I do this 
reluctantly. I consider Paul Simon to be a happy warrior, my friend, 
and I am sorry to see him depart membership in this body after this 
term.
  This amendment, which contains 11 pages of authorizing language, in 
the 

[[Page S12004]]
first place does not belong on an appropriations bill. Secondly, as the 
manager of the bill has pointed out, it authorizes yet another new 
museum for the Smithsonian. While the amendment limits the 
Smithsonian's exposure to that of operations and maintenance, these 
expenses will still be a drain on the budget at a time when the overall 
dollars are declining.
  The Smithsonian requested $19 million for the Indian Museum Cultural 
Resources Center in fiscal year 1996. This has been reduced to $15 
million. Still facing the committee are the Federal costs associated 
with the construction of the mall facility for the Indian museum. Mr. 
President, these construction requirements are in direct competition 
with operating dollars.
  The subcommittee also faces the additional operating expenses 
associated with the Indian museum, and I believe that it is 
irresponsible--and I say this with all due respect to the cosponsors of 
the amendment--it is irresponsible to add yet another burden to the 
Smithsonian's portfolio at this time. The Smithsonian has a repair and 
rehabilitation backlog estimated at a cost of $250 million. We should 
address these requirements before taking on the burden of a new 
facility.
  Congress has already also authorized the construction of an expansion 
facility for the Air and Space Museum, and, again, we should address 
facilities already authorized before proceeding with any additional new 
facilities. This is an inappropriate time to adopt this amendment. This 
is a freestanding bill, and we ought to treat it as such.
  So, Mr. President, I regretfully oppose the amendment. We see here 
what is going to be a growing problem. We are just beginning now. Wait 
until next year, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said 
the other day during a markup of the committee. It is tough this year, 
but just wait until next year, and it is going to be tougher.
  We have these competing requests for funds, and we have discretionary 
funds eating discretionary funds; domestic funds eating domestic 
discretionary funds--cannibalization of the domestic discretionary 
budget with various and sundry domestic discretionary programs and 
agencies cannibalizing other discretionary domestic programs. And in 
the final analysis, the military will cannibalize them all. Military is 
expected to increase by $7 billion, while domestic discretionary is 
going to be cut.
  I have to oppose the amendment. I hope that the managers' words will 
be heeded and the Senate will reject the amendment, with all due 
respect for my friend.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield me 
5 minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I, too, oppose this amendment. The Rules 
Committee has been following the Smithsonian quite closely, and I call 
to the attention of the Senate the Commission on the Future of the 
Smithsonian. That Commission said in a report recently:

       On the basis of the programmatic issues we have already 
     described, as well as the financial realities, continued 
     capital expansion in the early decades of the next century at 
     the rate experienced over the past few decades is out of the 
     question. The Smithsonian should essentially assume a 
     moratorium on new museums, other than what has already been 
     approved.

  This is what they said in their report, Mr. President, if anyone 
wants to see it. The authorization of the African-American museum is 
contrary to these recommendations. The projections for the cost of 
operating the Smithsonian range from $417 million for this year to $650 
million in the year 2000. If you add to that approximately $190 million 
needed for capital projects and capital needs for building maintenance 
for museums already authorized, the result is that the budget needed 
for the support of museums will almost double by the year 2000. Almost 
double without considering the cost of any new museums, including the 
African-American museum. I am sad to say this is just not possible. The 
Smithsonian has not told us how they expect to pay the operating costs 
of any new museums.
  I understand there will be contributions to the capital costs. But 
let me remind the Senate of the Smithsonian Environmental Research 
Center, known as SERC, located in Edgewater, MD.
  In 1963, the Smithsonian was given a parcel of land on the Chesapeake 
Bay for environmental research. By the mid-1970's, the Smithsonian was 
using Federal funds. By the late 1970's, the Smithsonian began to 
request funds for renovation and construction and reconstruction at the 
Chesapeake Bay center.
  In justifying its request for Federal funds, the Smithsonian used the 
fact that ``although originally established with non-Federal funds, the 
center has come to be heavily dependent upon appropriated funds for 
operating program support.''
  In this year, 1995, SERC again received Federal funds in the amount 
of $2.5 million. Federal funds now provide 90 percent of the operating 
funds and all funding for repair, restoration, and maintenance of 
buildings. This is typical of the situation we get into when we accept 
donated funds for capital costs and do not realize how the incremental 
operating costs pile up year after year. It is just not possible for us 
to fund this.
  I believe I am one of the Smithsonian's greatest supporters, and I 
have told them before that I hope it will be around for my 
grandchildren and their grandchildren. They take umbrage once in a 
while at some of my comments, but, in my opinion, the Smithsonian must 
make serious changes in its budgeting and planning if it is to survive 
into the next century based on what they already have and what is 
already authorized.
  We are not going to be able to have new initiatives that take 
taxpayers' money and still have the Smithsonian survive as we know it 
in the decade after the turn of the century. I believe the Senate 
should reject this amendment, as worthwhile as some may believe it is. 
We have other African-American museums already authorized, and the 
Smithsonian has plans for a new Center for African-American History and 
Culture to organize exhibitions and sponsor research at existing 
facilities.
  Under the circumstances, I cannot support Senator Simon's amendment. 
I support the position taken by the managers of the bill and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield whatever time I have left.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I do every day the Senate is in session, 
I made a brief report to the Senate yesterday identifying the latest 
available figure of the Federal debt--down to the penny. This is a sort 
of daily report on irresponsibility of the Congress of the United 
States.
  I reported today that as of the close of business Monday, August 7, 
the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at $4,946,673,660,276.63. On 
a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes an 
average share amounting to $8,777.66.
  With a debt this large, should Congress create a new program the cost 
of which is unknown? I hope not. But that is precisely what Senator 
Simon is proposing with his amendment to authorize the National African 
American Museum--saying, go ahead, give us unlimited amounts of 
taxpayers' money without making us accountable for 1 penny.
  The Simon amendment authorizes unlimited funds for an unlimited 
period of time for museum maintenance and operation. The Smithsonian 
has refused to furnish any estimate as to how much the project will 
ultimately cost the taxpayer--even after my asking them precisely that 
question on numerous occasions.
  In addition, the Smithsonian refuses to provide a budget for the 
museum's first 5 years--the Congressional Budget Office estimates the 
museum will cost $5 million per year until 1997, then a $6 million 
authorization for 1998.
  Mr. President, it is puzzling that this amendment would be offered at 
a time when the Smithsonian is lamenting its existing lack of funds 
before any consideration of yet another museum. As 

[[Page S12005]]
reported in the Washington Post, ``The Dilapidated State of the 
Nation's Attic,'' June 10, 1995, ``half a billion dollars' worth of 
repairs will be needed over the next 10 years to keep the Smithsonian 
Institution's aging facilities open.'' Smithsonian officials have told 
Congress that the Smithsonian buildings ``will all reach the end of 
their useful service lives within a 5-year time span.''
  Certainly, this is not the time for the Smithsonian to be saddled 
with another responsibility--especially a new museum.
  Mr. President, most bills coming before the Senate provide lengthy 
estimates and explanations of what the particular project plans to do, 
what funds will be needed to fulfill those goals, where the funds will 
originate, etc. But, with this project, we have been told by the 
Smithsonian--we want to create a museum, please authorize the project 
so we can come up with a plan. Well, this Senator is used to seeing the 
plan and the projected costs involved before he votes.
  Let me reiterate, the Senate has no business authorizing any 
legislation when we do not know the basic facts about its conception, 
costs, and mission.
  I hope the Simon amendment will be tabled.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMON. I will probably not use all that. Let me point out that 
there is not 1 penny of appropriations in this. This is a request that 
has been made by Smithsonian in past years. This complies with that 
request. The only expenditure possible without the approval of the 
Appropriations Committee would be if foundations provided assistance.
  Again, the Appropriations Committee, or the Rules Committee, would 
have oversight on this. I agree with Senator Byrd in terms of the 
cannibalization of domestic funds and that we ought to be pulling back 
on the military, the $7 billion we are spending on the military. I 
voted to take away that firewall, which I do not think makes any sense 
whatsoever.
  But I think the reality is that this is something that Smithsonian 
has requested in the past. It makes sense. Again, I simply remind 
everyone that there are two American groups with very distinctive 
histories, different from the histories of English-Americans or German-
Americans, or Norwegian-Americans, and every other group, and that is 
the Native Americans, the American Indians, and African-Americans, 
those who were brought over here as slaves. The need to recognize that 
this distinctive history should be part of the Smithsonian, I think, is 
a wise decision.
  I hope the motion to table that I assume my friend from Washington is 
going to be making in a moment or two will be defeated.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to speak 
in support of the establishment of a National African-American Museum 
within the Smithsonian Institution.
  The Smithsonian Institution is the national collection of American 
art and culture. Until now, this great collection did not include 
representation of the African-American experience in the United States. 
Today, because of this amendment, we will add a museum dedicated to the 
presentation and preservation of African-American art, culture, and 
history to our national collection.
  This museum is very important. Twelve percent of the population in 
this country is African-American. There are 40 million African-American 
schoolchildren in the United States. This museum will be a tool for 
teaching those children about their history and their culture. It will 
give all Americans an opportunity to know and appreciate the many 
contributions and important history of the descendants of Africa in 
America. Finally, the museum will recognize the rich legacy of the 
African-American experience in the United States, and celebrate the 
diversity of this Nation.
  I want to commend my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Simon of 
Illinois, for his leadership in guiding this legislation through the 
Senate. I thank him for his dedication and commitment to the 
establishment of a National African-American Museum within the 
Smithsonian Institution.
  Mr. GORTON. Is there any more time available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes, sixteen seconds.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will use very little of that time.
  The report of the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian 
Institution, issued earlier this year, says:

       To assure the future, declare a moratorium on new museum 
     construction unless the incremental funds needed for 
     construction and operations are assured.

  Mr. President, they are not assured and they cannot be assured.
  Second:

       Devote attention and resources to the rehabilitation and 
     maintenance of existing facilities.

  That is what we attempt to do in this bill, given the severe 
limitations and great cuts to which it is subjected.
  Mr. President, is the Senator finished?
  Mr. SIMON. I will take 1 minute of my time. Again, I simply stress 
that we are not asking for a penny here. We are simply authorizing it 
subject to the action of the Appropriations Committee. I point out 
again that this has passed the U.S. Senate before. It is not novel 
action here. I see my cosponsor walking onto the floor.
  I do not know if he wishes to have a minute or two before I yield 
back, but if the Senator from Arizona wishes the floor, I am pleased to 
yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support my colleague's amendment, as I 
have in the past. I think it is an appropriate action. I remind my 
colleagues that there are a lot of questions now today about our 
relations with minorities in this country. I think recognition of the 
contributions that African-Americans have made is appropriate for this 
country to do. I think that sooner or later, we will decide to do that. 
We have decided to build an Indian museum. We have built other museums 
to memorialize the contributions and sacrifices of other Americans. I 
think this is appropriate, too.
  I appreciate the tenacity and dedication of my colleague from 
Illinois.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the commission has spoken. We have no 
alternative but to listen. If we authorize this museum, it will be 
built with non-Federal funds, but it will immediately become a burden 
on the Smithsonian that the commission has urged us not to undertake.
  Is all time yielded back yet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. There is 1 minute 52 seconds for opponents 
and 8 minutes 52 seconds for the proponents.
  Mr. GORTON. Is the Senator from Illinois ready to yield the remainder 
of his time?
  Mr. SIMON. After taking 30 seconds, I will do that. I simply again 
say that we do not appropriate a thing here. I think the remarks of the 
Senator from Arizona were right on target. I think this is the time to 
pull people together. This is a way of doing it. I hope the motion to 
table will be defeated.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON. As I do, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Simon amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2306, offered by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. 
Simon].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of family illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
  
[[Page S12006]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 375 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Breaux
     Mack
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2306) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Nevada is ready 
with his amendment. But the Senator from Arizona has spoken very 
eloquently on the earlier amendment with respect to the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and wished to engage in a colloquy with me in lieu of 
another amendment on the same subject. We hope we can do that in an 
informal fashion and then go to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank my friend from Nevada. This will 
not take very long.
  The Senator from Washington was able to defend the committee position 
on the reductions in funding for various Indian issues. I respect the 
verdict of the full Senate.
  My colleague from the State of Washington has successfully defended 
the committee position. I had contemplated proposing further 
amendments, perhaps, in hopes of restoring at least some of the funds 
that were taken out, restoring some of the funds that were reduced in 
the bill in existing programs. I do not believe that probably will be, 
one, viable, or, two, an appropriate use of the time of the Senate over 
the last couple of days before we go out.
  The Senator from Washington knows from the debate how strongly the 
Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Hawaii and others feel on 
this issue, who have been involved in it for many years.
  I think it is important that my colleagues know that the Senator from 
Washington and I have engaged in conversations privately and that he 
has assured me that he will make an effort to at least restore some of 
those funds during the course of the conference. I think it would be 
helpful that it be on the record that the Senator from Washington and I 
have had this colloquy.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend from Arizona. I point out to him what 
he already knows--that there is perhaps a larger difference in this 
account between the House and the Senate than there is in any other 
account in this bill.
  The Senator from Arizona also knows and has expressed his 
appreciation for the very difficult challenges which have faced both me 
and the Senator from West Virginia in meeting these stringent 
requirements of the budget. But I have made private assurances, which I 
wish to make public, to the Senator from Arizona. The conference 
committee report is not going to come back with the figure which caused 
so much heartache to my friends from Arizona, New Mexico, and Hawaii. 
And I am certain that I will support significant restorations to the 
accounts which were of such concern to the three Senators who proposed 
that amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to, first of all, thank the 
Senator from Washington for that commitment. I know that he and the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia are very aware of the 
importance of these issues. I also appreciate the assurance of both the 
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Washington in allowing 
the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Hawaii, and me to make 
inputs as to where the most important priorities are for restoration of 
funding as we go into the conference, perhaps even to the point where 
the Senators from New Mexico and Hawaii and I may send a letter to both 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from 
Washington outlining our priorities as to where we think the most poor 
areas are where funds need to be restored.
  I want to again say to the Senator from Washington that I understand 
that he has had to make very tough decisions. Obviously, I did not 
agree with those decisions. But that does not mean that I have a lack 
of respect for, first, his diligence, and, second, the difficulty of 
the task that lays before him. I am especially appreciative of his 
commitment to try to at least restore in conference, in the course of 
the negotiations, as happens in every conference. This is not a very 
unusual situation. It has been unusual, obviously, to have this large a 
difference between the two bodies. But I am deeply appreciative that he 
is willing to consider restoration of funding in certain areas as he 
goes forward in the conference.
  I have made my arguments in the course of the amendment of the 
Senator from New Mexico. It was defeated. I will not make those 
arguments again.
  I again want to thank the Senator from Washington and the Senator 
from West Virginia for their consideration and appreciation of the 
seriousness of these issues.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona in his set of 
remarks made a second point which is important to respond to. In 
dealing with this bill, the Senator from West Virginia and I had to 
keep our focus constantly on the total amount of money we had available 
and carry it out as we did. The Senator from Arizona, together with the 
Senator from Hawaii, chairman and ranking member of the authorizing 
committee, the Committee on Indian Affairs, have far more expertise 
than we do as to internally how to divide such moneys and efforts in 
the programs. I can say for myself that I defer to leadership and the 
advice and counsel of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from 
Hawaii on those internal divisions of money, and we look forward to his 
advice. I think I can say that his advice will be followed.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Washington--and I note the 
presence of both my colleague from New Mexico and my dear friend from 
Hawaii, who I know will have additional remarks. Again, I appreciate 
the consideration that is shown by the Senator from Washington to all 
of us as we try to get through this very difficult situation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain from Arizona for 
the colloquy and for his observations, and I might say to my good 
friend, Senator Gorton, I am on his subcommittee, so I will be there at 
the conference with the House. So he will certainly be advised what I 
think is right. I will not have to bring him a letter. I will be 
pleased to carry their letter with my signature. But I will be there 
and suggesting what has been discussed here today.
  I want to thank Senator Gorton for the understanding. Obviously, we 
were very concerned about one particular aspect of Indian funding, and 
we understand clearly that he had much more than that to look at. As I 
said before, Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, with reference to the 
Indian health, which is one of those major programs that we have to run 
as a nation unless and until we change things, have been very generous. 
We from Indian country appreciate that. But, obviously, with reference 
to this particular one that we 
 
[[Page S12007]]

are concerned about, we hope we can work with Senator Gorton, since the 
House was higher on that, and perhaps some other of the Indian programs 
that we might think are of higher priority. I thank him for that.
  I understand his comments to Senator McCain would apply equally to 
what I have in mind and my concerns.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, they do.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to join the distinguished Senators 
from Arizona and New Mexico in expressing my words of gratitude to the 
Senator from Washington for his words of assurance.
  I thank him very much.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Hawaii.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


 Amendment No. 2308 to the Committee Amendment on Page 9, Line 23, and 
                              to the Bill

(Purpose: To increase the amount of funds made available to activities 
 relating to the administration of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
                            with an offset)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of 
myself, Senator Chafee, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lieberman, and 
Senator Boxer, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, and Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2308 to the committee 
     amendment on page 9, line 23, and to the bill.

  Mr. REID. 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 9, lines 23 through 25, strike ``$496,978,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1997,'' 
     and insert ``$501,478,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1997, of which not less than $3,800,000 
     shall be made available for prelisting activities, 
     $18,297,000 shall be made available for consultation 
     activities, and $36,500,000 shall be made available for 
     recovery activities, and''.
       On page 27, line 10, strike ``$132,507,000'' and insert 
     ``$128,007,000''.
       On page 27, line 11, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That none of the reduction below the 
     FY 1996 budget request shall be applied to the health and 
     safety budget activity''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as a young boy growing up, I had living 
across the alley the Vincent family. The boys as I knew them were 
raised basically by their mother. They were a large family of eight or 
nine children, but the young men in the family were the toughest, 
strongest, most athletic young men that you could imagine in a family. 
One of them was a Golden Gloves champion. They were, I repeat, all very 
tough young men. We played ball together. We grew up together. We were 
very close friends.
  One of the Vincent boys, as we referred to them, was Don Vincent. He 
was one of the older boys. As tough and as handsome and as energetic as 
all of them was Don Vincent. His first child was a little boy and, of 
course, in this Vincent society this young man was going to grow up and 
be just like his dad.
  Well, he was a Little League baseball player, and he hit a ball a 
long way into the outfield as a Little Leaguer, and he was running, 
coming around third base. He almost stopped. He made it home, but he 
was tired. And his dad, of course, did not want to have the boy be a 
quitter; the Vincents were not quitters. He talked to his boy: You 
cannot quit; you have to go hard. He could not understand why a Vincent 
would not do his best.
  Mr. President, this little boy had leukemia. He died very quickly. 
You see, 25 years ago, 30 years ago, as the Vincent family was growing 
up, the second generation that I knew, they had no cure for childhood 
leukemia. Everybody died. A child got leukemia; the child died. It is 
not that way anymore. Had this little boy gotten leukemia today, there 
would be over a 99 percent chance he would be healed.
  So I talked to the Vincents, talked to Donnie, as we call him, about 
his little boy and how things have changed. Why now can someone like 
the little Vincent boy be saved? Because of a plant, a plant, Mr. 
President, called the Madagascar rosy periwinkle. This plant, of 
course, from the country of Madagascar, is near extinction. They are 
wiping out the rain forests in Madagascar and with it the periwinkle. 
Not only does it have a better than 99 percent rate of remission with 
childhood leukemia, but it also has over an 80-percent cure rate for 
Hodgkin's disease--not bad.
  What we are here today to talk about is endangered species. It is the 
sense of the Senate and the House that there is a moratorium on listing 
further endangered species. I disagree with that. I think it is wrong. 
But that is the will of the Senate.
  Therefore, this amendment does not try to eliminate the moratorium on 
endangered species. What it does do is focus attention on the fact that 
endangered species are important, and this amendment further says that 
we should spend more money on certain areas dealing with endangered 
species listing than we have in the committee mark that is now before 
this body.
  We need to spend more money in recovery. We need to spend more money 
in prelisting. And we need to spend more money, Mr. President, in 
consultation. Even though we are spending money in these areas--that is 
prelisting, consultation, and recovery--we are still spending less 
money than we did even last year.
  If, in fact, the periwinkle bush was the only plant that had great 
lifesaving value, it would still be worth doing more endangered 
species, but it is not the only plant that saves lives.
  The Pacific yew tree is a relatively new plant family. It is a tree 
we have found that has lifesaving qualities. It produces something 
called taxol. Taxol was first used relatively recently in 1983 to treat 
ovarian and breast cancer and some lung cancers and today, after 10 
short years, is the most effective treatment for achieving remission in 
advanced ovarian cancer that has ever been known.
  Originally, this substance--it is a chemical substance--was extracted 
from the bark of a yew tree--y-e-w. It took 3 to 12 trees, which take 
100 years to reach maturity, to provide enough taxol to treat one woman 
with ovarian cancer.
  Now, we are doing research to find out if there are other ways we can 
come up with this lifesaving chemical that is in the bark of the yew 
tree. We are doing it from the needles of the yew tree. We are making 
some progress there. We have even been able to synthesize this 
chemical, and so we are making progress.
  But since clearcutting of forests in the Pacific Northwest has really 
squandered the natural yew supply, it is important that we have 
developed this alternative.
  Mr. President, about 50 percent of the medicine and treatments used 
today can be traced directly to plants. If someone within the sound of 
my voice goes today to a drugstore to get a prescription, there is a 50 
percent chance that the medicine they are getting has some relation to 
a plant.
  Nearly all prescription antibiotics in addition to that were isolated 
from molds and microbes.
  We have heard a lot about the Contract With America, and I think that 
is important. It has been an important discussion in this body and the 
other body. I think we should dwell on something called a contract with 
nature, a term that was developed by Thomas Eisner. He said he feels 
that we as Americans and we as world citizens should be concerned about 
what nature has to provide for us. The irony of the Endangered Species 
Act is that most species cannot be listed on it because they do not 
even have a name.
  Let me give you an example. Dr. Eisner and his colleagues were aware 
of a scrub plant. It was always in their way. It was a weed. That is 
what it was. It was a weed, in his technical jargon. He said it had a 
weed-like appearance. They decided to test it and see what substances 
this plant had. They learned very quickly that it worked extremely well 
as an insect repellent, and they also have learned that it works great 
as an antifungal product. Is that very important? Yes, it is very 
important. Dermatologists are always looking for antifungal medicines. 
Athlete's foot is one of the better known kinds of 

[[Page S12008]]

fungus. It gets a lot worse in people's feet. But they have medicines 
for it, one of which was recently discovered in a weed patch.
  This weed that is now called the Lake Placid mint and is found only 
within 300 acres of a protected biological station in central Florida, 
were it not for its privileged position, being in a weed patch next to 
a place where Dr. Eisner worked, it would be gone and we would never 
know the properties that it has.
  I spoke to this body a minute or two ago, Mr. President, about the 
yew tree. Let's bring it down into real personal terms. A woman by the 
name of Elaine Forma, chairwoman of the World Hunger Committee, in 1991 
was diagnosed as having terminal ovarian cancer. They told her she had 
6 months to live. She tried all conventional therapy, including 
chemotherapy.
  They decided, because taxol was just getting started in 1991, that 
they would try that on her. She has now been symptom free since taking 
this medicine. Were it not for taxol, she would not be alive. There are 
numerous instances just like this.
  In Nevada there has been an ongoing debate for as long as I can 
remember about the desert pup fish. There is a place in Nye County 
where there is a little pond where the desert pup fish lives, little 
tiny, tiny fish. And if I have heard one, I have heard 50, 60, 100 
people say, ``What good are they? Why spend all the money on the desert 
pup fish? Protecting this?'' They did not allow the water to be pumped 
down.
  People farmed in that area. At one time they grew cotton. They said, 
``You are not going to be able to do that anymore because you will kill 
the desert pup fish.'' Well, we learned that the desert pup fish, one 
of the tiniest invertebrates on the Earth, is helping researchers to 
learn more about kidney disease by studying how these little animals 
handle the heavy quantities of salt that their little bodies must 
handle. Tremendous advances are being made in kidney disease research. 
And if you have had a friend or a relative who has kidney disease, you 
know this is important.
  What about bears? I have always been just amazed at how bears and 
other animals, but especially bears, can just go to sleep, stay asleep 
for months, not days, but months. We have found, Mr. President, that 
studying bears, what happens to them when they are asleep, or in 
hibernation, gives us great ability to understand other things, for 
example, kidney failure. How do these animals stay asleep for as long 
as they do? They never get up to go to the bathroom. How do they handle 
their bodily functions?
  We have learned that hibernating black bears are immobile for up to 5 
months. That is, they are down, taking a nap, sound asleep for 5 
months, during which time they neither lose bone nor do they urinate. 
Bears continue to lay down new bone, making use of calcium circulating 
in their blood, and somehow recycle their urinary waste to make new 
proteins--a totally new discovery. Researching the mechanisms of how 
bears survive hibernation may result in treatment for osteoporosis in 
the elderly and, again, for kidney failure.
  Now, we know that some of these bears are in danger. The Houston 
toad, which is on the brink of extension due to absent habitat laws, 
may produce alkaloids that reduce heart attacks. They found that a 
substance these little toads produce has more analgesic properties than 
morphine.
  I am not going to go into a lot more detail on endangered species and 
being species specific, but, Mr. President, there are species all over 
the United States that we need to save that allow us to get well, to 
treat diseases that have never been treated before. We need it, Mr. 
President, and that is the reason the endangered species law is 
important, is that it has allowed us to prospect for chemicals, to 
search for new medicines, for new agrichemicals and other useful 
substances from nature. We must do this.
  As I have indicated, the sources of 50 percent of today's medicines, 
as well as foundation for medical research and future cures, comes from 
a full range of species from bears and plants in our forests, sharks, 
corrals, and even sponges in our seas. Well, this chemical treasury of 
nature is disappearing before we even have the opportunity to assess 
it--cancer, AIDS, heart and circulatory problems, infectious disease, 
Parkinson's disease, tranquilizers, anti-inflammatory disease.
  A member of my family, Mr. President, had we only known, would have 
been a well person today instead of somebody not in good health had the 
fact of having a fungus on wheat been available to treat their 
condition, an anti-inflammatory disease. It works. It cures people.

       This chemical treasury of nature is literally disappearing 
     before we have a chance to assess it. We cannot afford in 
     years ahead to be deprived of the inventions of nature, 
     chemicals such as taxol. And others could not have been 
     designed by human ingenuity. Both compounds--were totally 
     unforeseen in chemical structures and therapeutic action.

  This is a statement by Dr. Thomas Eisner, the man about whom I spoke 
a minute ago.
  Mr. Stephen Brewer, manager of Bioproducts Chemistry, reported that 
his analysis of the 20 best-selling drugs in the United States show 
that most benefited from natural products research. This accounted for 
at least $6 billion in sales in 1988.
  What we are trying to do here, Mr. President, is to provide a few 
extra dollars not for doing away with the lifting moratorium which is 
in effect, but for providing some money while we either reauthorize or 
wait for this next fiscal year to pass by, that the proper authorities 
can still do work on endangered species. They will not be listing any, 
but there will be some prelistings and they will do some consultations 
and do things to make sure we do not lose species.
  Extinction, you know, Mr. President, is final. It is terminal. Once 
something becomes extinct, it is gone forever. That permanence should 
weigh heavily when we consider our priorities. Our priorities are 
reflected in this budget. And we must have a priority that says we need 
to be concerned about endangered species.
  I see the diversity of life on this Earth is beneficial to all of us. 
The benefits of species diversity are immeasurable. Even setting aside 
all the medical utilitary purposes of biodiversity, it is in all of our 
interests to assure the continuation of all species. This funding is an 
expression of that value.
  Mr. President, the money that is being taken here, we are in a 
process here in the U.S. Congress where we are cannibalizing programs 
to save other programs, to help other programs. And that is in effect 
what we have done here. We are taking money from a program that could 
be important to the State of Nevada. It is important to this country. 
But, Mr. President, we have to list priorities. And what we have done 
here is taken money from the Bureau of Mines.
  We are taking money, Mr. President, from the Bureau of Mines, $4.5 
million, and we are going to spend that in the prelisting, 
consultation, and recovery. And as a result of doing that, we certainly 
are not going to be replacing much money. We will still be under last 
year's levels in those areas, in addition to the fact that under 
listing we will have lost, Mr. President, about $6 million in that 
program. And we will make up part of what we lost in the prelisting, 
the consultation and recovery but certainly far below last year's 
levels anyway.
  I would ask the Members of the Senate to understand that this is not 
a violation of what action has been taken previously in this body; that 
is, to place a moratorium on listings. It is, though, a step in the 
right direction. And I repeat, even though I disagree with the 
moratorium that is now in effect, I think this is a step in the right 
direction.
  Of the 220,000 worldwide types of plants, only 5,000 have been 
examined for medical compounds. So I understand that some may not 
appreciate our studying the black bear, may not understand why we are 
studying some exotic plants, but we need to do that because our health 
depends on it.
  I very much appreciate the leadership shown in this matter by the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the junior 
Senator from Rhode Island. He has been a great chairman of the 
subcommittee. I have appreciated serving with him during my entire stay 
in the Senate and certainly appreciate his advice and counsel on this 
amendment.

[[Page S12009]]

  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, for the excellent work he has done 
on this amendment. He has really been a powerhouse in protecting the 
Endangered Species Act and working on it to make it more effective. I 
want to express to him the appreciation, not only of myself but I think 
of all Americans who believe in preserving the diversity that now 
exists in our nature.
  But for the Endangered Species Act, we would not be where we are. 
Yes, it is all right to talk about the visible things that have been 
saved, like the grizzly, the American eagle, or the California condor, 
but it is the thousands of other less prestigious, if you will, plants 
and animals that also have been protected during these 20 years, 25 
years since the Endangered Species Act was first enacted, and it is due 
to Senators that have gone before us, such as Ed Muskie and others. But 
in that role of champions, there is none better than Harry Reid in 
working for an effective Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. President, the Endangered Species Act is funded at a very modest 
level. In the current year, $69 million. We had one witness come before 
us and say, ``Just remember, what you are spending on endangered 
species is about what it costs to build 2 miles of urban interstate 
highway''--2 miles of urban interstate highway. Overall in the 
interstate system, we have 45,000 miles, and 2 miles of that would 
provide for the funding of the Endangered Species Act for an entire 
year.
  The bill, as originally proposed, provided for a 20-percent cut in 
the funding for the Endangered Species Act; namely, going from $69 to 
$55 million. I want to express my appreciation to the senior Senator 
from Washington, the floor manager of the bill, Senator Gorton, for his 
working with us, and Senator Byrd, likewise, the distinguished former 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for working with us in the 
restoration of $4.5 million of that $14 million cut.
  I might say that what the Reid amendment would do with that $4.5 
million, it will go for prelisting, for consultation, and for recovery 
activities by the Fish and Wildlife Service. All of those services are 
required by the law. The law says you have to have recovery, you have 
to have prelisting, you have to have consultation. Thus, a reduction in 
the funding will only make it more difficult for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to do its job and will compound the problems that exist out 
there with local governments and with landowners.
  This amendment, I might say, Mr. President, does not affect listing. 
Under this bill we have before us, listing will be forbidden. There is 
a moratorium on any new listings or any new critical habitat 
designation until September 30, 1996, over a year from now, or until 
the Endangered Species Act is reauthorized. I am not enthusiastic about 
that, but as Senator Reid said, that is the way things go, and that is 
the will of the majority here. So there it is.
  It is my hope that in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we 
can come forward with a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, 
under the able leadership of the subcommittee dealing with this matter, 
the leader of that committee being Senator Kempthorne, doing a splendid 
job, five hearings have been held on the reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act, extremely constructive hearings with many good 
proposals for reform of the act.
  We have another hearing coming up in Wyoming a week from today, that 
is, if we are not here, and I greatly hope that we will not be. As 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to make 
it clear that I am in favor of passing legislation to reauthorize, to 
improve the Endangered Species Act and hope to have that done this 
calendar year.
  Several of the witnesses who testified in favor of changes to the 
ESA, the Endangered Species Act, made a point of stating support for 
adequate funding. What did they say? Are they tree huggers who only 
believe in the Endangered Species Act? This is what Paul Harja, 
testifying in behalf of the Western Governors Association, said on July 
13. He stated:

       A lot of the Governors are very concerned that funds to 
     actually implement the act--I'm not talking about acquisition 
     funds--worry that funds will be cut, resulting in an even 
     worse problem than we have now.

  On behalf of the Western Governors, Mr. Harja stated in testimony:

       Reform of the act could prove meaningless if technical and 
     financial assistance cannot be provided for the renewed 
     public-private partnership that is essential to achieving the 
     goals of the Endangered Species Act.

  The building industry of southern California wrote about ``the 
critical need for Federal funding.'' This letter closed by saying:

       Congressional action to reliably fund multispecies planning 
     programs such as California's Natural Communities 
     Conservation Plan, is essential to a workable Endangered 
     Species Act.

  The theme through all this is, ``We've got the act, it has to be 
funded properly.''
  The Western Urban Water Coalition, an association that represents 
water utilities for the largest cities in the Western United States, 
has written a letter dated July 24, just last month, urging that 
funding of the Endangered Species Act not be reduced. Their letter 
states:

       Federal agencies must be given the current resources needed 
     to do their jobs. If they cannot perform, the lack of staff 
     and funding for technical work and cooperation with our 
     utilities will cause ESA implementation problems to grow, and 
     our water consumers, rather than the Federal bureaucracy, 
     will be penalized.

  The Western Lands Commission has passed a resolution urging Congress 
to provide adequate funding of the ESA. This is what that resolution 
said in part:

       The members urge Congress to fund implementation of ESA at 
     a level that will permit, among other things, the required 
     consultation under sections 7 and 10, to be conducted in a 
     timely and expeditious manner . . .

  Restoring funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service will help the ESA 
work better on private lands. By providing funds for prelisting 
activities, Fish and Wildlife Service can avoid additional listings.
  Mr. President, why should those who oppose the existing Endangered 
Species Act support this amendment? The answer is clear. It is because 
problems under ESA will get worse, not better, if we fail to provide 
adequate funds.
  On the prelisting, some of the money goes for that. Funds for 
prelisting activities are used by the Fish and Wildlife Service for 
cooperative efforts with States and private landowners and Federal 
agencies to conserve a candidate species before it becomes threatened 
or endangered.
  The Reid amendment provides $3.8 million for prelisting. What about 
consultation? That is part of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
  Funds for consultation activities are used by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to meet obligations under section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 
requires agencies to consult with Fish and Wildlife to ensure that 
Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species.
  The Service also uses funds under the consultation account to pay for 
work of landowners on habitat conservation plans. In a recent hearing, 
a representative from Riverside County, CA, urged that financial 
assistance be provided to local communities to aid in the development 
of the habitat conservation plans.
  What about recovery, the last section? Funds for the recovery program 
are used to develop and implement recovery plans so that species no 
longer need to be listed. The whole thrust of this is to keep the 
species from becoming endangered. Do not get it on the list, if 
possible.
  The recovery of wildlife and plants that are on the threatened and 
endangered species lists is the ultimate goal of the ESA. Once they are 
on the endangered and threatened list, we want to get them off. That is 
why the recovery is so important throughout the whole Endangered 
Species Act.
  The Senate bill would reduce funds for recovery efforts by $10 
billion. The Reid amendment restores $1.7 million of that funding.
  Again, Mr. President, neither the current Endangered Species Act, nor 
any of the proposed reform bills--I know the Senator from Washington 
has one and, clearly, out of the Environment Committee we will have a 
reform bill--will be successful without adequate funding. Eliminating 
the funds 

[[Page S12010]]
necessary for the Fish and Wildlife Service to do its job is 
counterproductive. The funding levels provided under the Senate bills 
will exacerbate current problems with the ESA. That is why it is so 
important this $4.8 million be added.
  I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia 
for his cooperation in this. The money does come from an area where he 
is deeply concerned. It is a cut to a modest degree--4 percent in the 
Bureau of Mines. Without the support of the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, who I can say is a real friend of mine since I have been 
here--for 19 years, it has been my privilege to have worked all that 
time with the Senator from West Virginia, and I am very proud that we 
have developed a friendship over that time, which I greatly value.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I was 
under the impression it was $4.5 million. The Senator said $4.8 
million.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am sorry. I nearly got away with $300,000 more, Mr. 
President. It is $4.5 million, and that is what my notes say.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I shall remain his friend.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We would not like a friendship broken up over a mere 
$300,000.
  I thank, again, my cosponsor, whom I have worked with, Senator Reid, 
and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who 
has been very helpful and persistent in this. I must say we need lots 
of friends in the Endangered Species Act, and we have two good ones in 
those two distinguished Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because I am actively 
supporting the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. I would like to 
take a few minutes to outline my reasons for doing so and to thank, in 
particular, Senator Reid from Nevada, for his leadership on this 
amendment. I want to note that his battle has been a relatively long 
one, and fairly detailed, to protect the species that mean so much to 
all of us. It is not simply one bird, one fish, one insect of sorts, 
one shrub, or one plant; this problem of endangered species, long 
ignored, will endanger the well-being of the human race.
  So I commend him and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the 
environmental committee, Senator Chafee. I also thank our perennial 
leader, with or without titles, for his distinguished service in the 
U.S. Senate for so many years, someone who always reminds us about our 
responsibilities, sometimes not often enough, to get the people's work 
done. And, of course, that is Senator Byrd from West Virginia, whom I 
have had the pleasure and opportunity to work with on so many things 
during his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, during his 
ranking standing on the Appropriations Committee, always with a guiding 
hand, and someone whose counsel and advice I treasure. I thank them all 
because this means a great deal to me.
  I am delighted that there is a compromise of sorts that does lend 
more funding to the Endangered Species Act. I cosponsored this 
amendment. The bill, as it is written, includes drastic cuts in the 
endangered species program. And if those cuts are left to stand as they 
are, it would provoke rather than solve problems in the administration 
of the program. The cuts that are still there, despite the fact that we 
have been able to add $4.5 million to the program, will reduce the 
flexibility of the Department of the Interior to work cooperatively 
with landowners in complying with the Endangered Species Act and slow 
rather than speed the recovery of the species.
  It is obvious that I support the Endangered Species Act, and I do so 
because it has worked successfully in many instances. Enacted over two 
decades ago, the Endangered Species Act was a bold attempt to halt the 
dangerous disappearance of an increasing number of species. The act 
does more than preserve species; it protects the human race, and it 
protects people by conserving the biological resources upon which we so 
much depend.
  The act, as it stands, is not perfect, and the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, of which I am a member, is actively working to 
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. Thusly, I think some of the 
actions being taken which preempt that legislation are precipitous in 
nature. And while we hope to address many of the faults that exist, we 
are still working to preserve the positive aspects of the act during 
the reauthorization process.
  Mr. President, this bill would reduce funding for those activities 
that are considered to be the most positive aspects of the act. Over 
the last 2 months, the Environment and Public Works Committee has held 
five hearings on reauthorization. In those hearings, we have heard many 
different points of view--from those who want the program to be totally 
voluntary, to those who feel the program does not go far enough. 
However, most people support the conservation of threatened or 
endangered species, and most testify that the key to protecting 
threatened or endangered species is to provide incentives for private 
property owners to help them do the right thing.
  Mr. President, last week, the Keystone Center, a conference group, 
issued its final report on ``Incentives for Private Landowners to 
Protect Endangered Species,'' so titled. This report documents the 
consensus proposal of a diverse group of people involved in the review 
of the act.
  They agreed that ``it would be highly desirable to further the goal 
of conserving endangered species through greater voluntary 
participation and the involvement of the private sector and by 
providing positive incentives that reward landowners for taking action 
to protect or conserve endangered or threatened species and their 
habitat.''
  Now, we ought to take these recommendations to heart and ensure that 
private landowners and local governments do not alone bear the brunt of 
the cost of recovery.
  Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not state my firm 
opposition to bill language that implements a moratorium on listing and 
designation of critical habitat.
  This moratorium, in my view, is damaging and harmful. Our endangered 
species will continue to be threatened and maybe even totally 
terminated. The costs of recovery will continue to mount. And the Fish 
and Wildlife Service will find itself paralyzed to effect any 
improvements in the administration of this act.
  Last April, the Senate imposed a similar moratorium on listings while 
we considered the defense supplemental bill. While I opposed this 
provision, I understood that it would be in effect until the end of 
this fiscal year, September 30, 1995. Now, Mr. President, we see the 
moratorium extended for yet another year or until reauthorization. Now, 
I am pleased that the committee agreed to limit it for 1 additional 
year, but I must say that I strongly disagree with the moratorium 
notion altogether.
  However, this amendment does not touch the moratorium on listing and 
designation of critical habitat. Let me make it clear: It does not 
remove the moratorium.
  The amendment simply increases the funding for prelisting 
activities--a little preventive medicine; consultation, which allows 
cooperation with landowners; and recovery programs to remove species 
from the list. Nothing more and nothing less.
  Over the past few days, I received letters from organizations that 
are concerned with the slash in funding of the Endangered Species Act 
programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record letters from the Western Urban Water Coalition, the Pacific 
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, a joint letter from six 
religious organizations, a resolution from the Western States Land 
Commissioners Association all in support of increases in ESA funding. 
It is quite a diverse group.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Western Urban Water Coalition,

                                          Orem, UT, July 24, 1995.
     Re Fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations for 
         Administration of the Endangered Species Act.
     Sen. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: On behalf of the Western Urban Water 
     Coalition, I am writing to urge that funding for 
     administration of the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') 
     program by the Department of the Interior, and other 
     agencies, not be unnecessarily reduced 

[[Page S12011]]
     or restricted by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Western Urban 
     Water Coalition is a national association of water utilities 
     for the largest cities in the Western United States. 
     Together, these utilities supply water to over 30 million 
     people in the West.
       The Coalition agrees that the ESA should be amended to work 
     in a more balanced and efficient manner, and has been 
     actively involved in ESA reauthorization. A copy of our 
     position paper on the ESA is enclosed. Until such amendments 
     are in the law, however, FWS, NMFS, and other agencies must 
     be given the current resources needed to do their jobs. If 
     they cannot perform, the lack of staff and funding for 
     technical work and cooperation with our utilities will cause 
     ESA implementation problems to grow, and our water consumers, 
     rather than the federal bureaucracy, will be penalized.
       The Coalition members are involved in a wide variety of 
     projects to provide water for Western cities. Many require 
     ESA compliance. To fulfill their mission of providing a 
     reliable water supply to their customers, the federal 
     agencies charged with ESA responsibility on these projects 
     must have adequate resources to carry out their required role 
     in a timely and consistent manner. In the Coalition's view, 
     the level of funding approved by the House for the FWS, the 
     NMFS, and other agencies, for ESA implementation is 
     inadequate. It runs unnecessarily high risks to our members 
     ability to provide reliable future water supplies. We 
     strongly urge the Senate to restore ESA implementation funds 
     to a more reasonable level.
       A few examples illustrate the nature of this problem. 
     Several Coalition members are engaged in preparing Habitat 
     Conservation Plans (``HCPs'') to enable them to go forward 
     with important water supply activities. These plans require 
     extensive consultation with federal officials at FWS and/or 
     NMFS. Only recently have sufficient staff become available to 
     make these procedures workable and timely. If funding for ESA 
     programs is cut, we fear that the HCP process will suffer, 
     with negative impact on our long-term planning and on the 
     ongoing projects that are necessary to supply water to our 
     customers.
       Consultation under section 7 also requires adequate support 
     from federal officials. Although Coalition members have some 
     concerns with the way the section 7 process is sometimes 
     applied, the solution is not to rescind or dramatically 
     reduce funding in advance of substantive amendments to the 
     Act. Such an approach will only slow down the section 7 
     process to our detriment.
       Similarly, recovery plans are essential to solving ESA 
     problems in a way that does not adversely affect the public 
     interest. As discussed in our position paper, the recovery 
     planning process must be improved. Nonetheless, without 
     adequate funds, recovery plans are likely to receive low 
     priority and the necessary actions to carry these plans 
     forward will be difficult or impossible to achieve.
       Thank you for considering these concerns. We would be happy 
     to meet with you or provide additional information on our 
     concerns at the ESA appropriations level. Please call either 
     me or Don Baur if we can be of further assistance.
           Very truly yours.

                                                Guy R. Martin,

                                                 National Counsel,
     Western Urban Water Coalition.
                                                                    ____

                                          Pacific Coast Federation


                                  of Fishermen's Associations,

                                    Sausalito, CA, August 4, 1995.
       Dear Senator: PCFFA is the largest organization of 
     commercial fishermen on the west coast, representing the men 
     and women of the Pacific fishing fleet who generate tens of 
     thousands of fishing jobs for coastal and inland communities. 
     Many of these fishermen are salmon fishermen.
       Salmon are in collapse throughout the Northwest and 
     Northern California to the point of requiring listing under 
     the ESA in order to prevent many key runs from extinction. 
     The salmon fishery is in a state of fishing emergency as 
     declared by the Department of Commerce, and unless pre-
     listing recovery efforts are well funded coho salmon may be 
     listed coastwide within the year. ESA recovery funds and pre-
     listing biological reviews are thus vitally important to 
     restoring tens of thousands of salmon-dependent jobs on the 
     west coast. In fact, the only open salmon fishery in the 
     lower 48 is now open as a direct result of ESA-driven water 
     reforms and habitat restoration in the California Central 
     Valley.
       We urge you to support the Reid Amendment to restore ESA 
     recovery funds. Without these funds the salmon fishing 
     industry cannot act to save the basic biological foundation 
     upon which its job base depends. The salmon fishing industry 
     in California, Oregon and Washington has already lost an 
     estimated 72,000 family wage jobs in the last 20 years, 
     almost 50,000 of them just since 1988. These jobs can be 
     restored with appropriate ESA-driven recovery efforts--but 
     not without appropriate funding.
       Defunding ESA recovery efforts defunds all the solutions 
     and leaves only the problems. Defunding recovery only makes 
     those problems--as our job losses--worse. We urge you to 
     support the Reid Amendment in order to restore those funds.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Glen H. Spain,
         Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast Federation of 
     Fishermen's Associations.
                                                                    ____



                                       Church of the Brethren,

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1995.
       Dear Senator: Along with many others, we, the following 
     faith communities, have a long history of support for the 
     protection of species. We see this as a stewardship 
     responsibility for all creation.
       We also believe that safeguarding the wide variety of the 
     world's species is good for people. As we protect wild 
     species' ecosystems, we are preserving our own air and water. 
     In addition, people rely on a wide variety of species for 
     medicinal and agricultural breakthroughs. Finally, as many 
     communities have experienced, the presence of species results 
     in economic boons, due to sustained natural resources such as 
     fish populations, tourism and recreation dollars, and because 
     businesses prefer locations where the quality of life is 
     high.
       Since we strongly support the protection of species, we are 
     very concerned about portions of the Interior appropriations 
     bill (H.R. 1977) that significantly cut or place moratoriums 
     on the operation of the Endangered Species Act. Such 
     provisions will lead to further decline within species that 
     are waiting to be listed or that need proactive protection 
     from recovery plans, land acquisition, prelisting preventive 
     activities, and so on. In addition, if the safeguarding of 
     species is delayed, later actions to protect these species 
     may be more expensive and burdensome.
       We urge you to support amendments that will restore 
     Endangered Species Act funding and life the ESA moratoriums. 
     In addition, we urge you to oppose possible amendments that 
     will seek to slash funding further.
       We look forward to continued dialogue with you as you deal 
     the Endangered Species Act issues. Thank you for considering 
     our concerns.
           Sincerely,
     Timothy A. McElwee,
       The Church of the Brethren, Washington Office.
     Father Robert J. Brooks,
       The Episcopal Church,
     Daryl Byler,
       Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office.
     Paula Johnson,
       Lutheran Office of Governmental Affairs.
       Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office.
     Rabbi David Saperstein,
       Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Union of 
     American Hebrew Congregations.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the offset that permits us to add $4.5 
million comes from a decrease in funding for the Bureau of Mines
  Now, I want to say this: The Bureau is one of the few agencies in the 
bill that received the President's full request.
  The House bill, on the other hand, eliminates the Bureau. I want to 
say this, particularly in the presence of my distinguished colleague 
and friend from West Virginia: This amendment does not eliminate the 
Bureau. I would not support that. I believe that the Bureau conducts 
important research on mine and worker safety. There has been no 
stronger advocate on concerns for miner health and well-being than the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. President, we have struck a balance with some small adjustments 
here and there. It is a positive mood on behalf of our ecology, and 
frankly on the human race.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment. As I look at past 
history and think of what it costs us overall when mistakes are made in 
protecting the environment, mistakes like the Exxon Valdez spill, that 
cost over $1 billion, and numerous other oil spills that have almost 
decimated the ecology in a particular area, when we look here and we 
see that we are funding protection of endangered species with a $59 
million appropriation, and that only because we are able to add $4.5 
million--compared, by the way, to $69 million last year; a very 
significant decrease, about 15 percent if my arithmetic serves me--a 
budget request for the Endangered Species Act was $77.5 million. We are 
off almost 20 percent from there. These are huge cuts.
  Mr. President, when I think of something like the Endangered Species 
Act, I cannot help but think of my grandchildren's faces and how 
delighted my children were when we would go on a trip into the 
mountains. We did a lot of travel and we would see a deer, or even 
small animals like a raccoon, or to see the larger animals like the 
trip we were able to take in which we saw lions, baboons, and 
elephants. It almost would bring tears to their eyes when we discussed 
what might happen 

[[Page S12012]]
to these species if they were left unprotected.
  We see it happening all over the world. In America, where we value 
our ecology, where we value the inhabitants of our Earth, we ought not 
to be talking about how we stop the process, but rather how we 
encourage the process of protection.
  When we look at the return of the bald eagle, it excites all of us. I 
have been to Alaska--one of the most beautiful places certainly in our 
country--to see the bald eagle recover from the days of earlier times 
when the species kept reducing. There are bald eagle pairs now seen in 
New Jersey, the most crowded State in the country. It is a thrill to 
see them.
  In New Jersey now, sometimes some of it gets some of the neighborhood 
people disturbed, but we have sightings that confirm that there are at 
least 200 black bear and possibly up to as many as 600 in the State of 
New Jersey. This is a group of animals that was almost totally gone.
  It is not good if they chew in your garbage and things of that 
nature, but when you ask the little kids whether they like the pictures 
of the black bear and so forth, they thrill to the opportunity.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is always a pleasure to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank my friend from New Jersey and my friend 
from Nevada for their leadership on this. It is my privilege to serve 
with both Senators on the Environment Committee. I feel so good about 
this amendment. I understand it will be accepted, which is wonderful.
  We may have some differences among us on administering this program, 
but what we are doing here today is strengthening it, and I do agree 
that there is such support as the Senator has noted in the State of New 
Jersey for the underlying purpose of the Endangered Species Act.
  I just want to thank the Senator. I guess in the end I did not have a 
question but a compliment for my friend from New Jersey and my friend 
from Nevada for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. No campaign is successful without a good 
army. The Senator from California is not only one of the best scouts 
but one of the strongest fighters, as well, in military terminology.
  Mr. President, I close my remarks with just one little tale about 
what happens in the migratory seasons with birds as they pass through 
New Jersey, and the people that flock out there, along with the birds, 
at 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning to be ready to see the species 
traveling north to south and vice versa, depending on the season.
  What a thrill. They hear a bunch of adults yelling, ``Here it is,'' 
and they identify this remote species of a bird we have not seen in 20 
years, and everybody is thrilled about it, and it reaches all the local 
newspapers. Maybe it is because we are such a crowded State that we in 
many ways are more protective of the species than, sometimes, perhaps, 
people who have such an abundance of them within their State.
  Mr. President, I hope that we will adopt this amendment without any 
fuss or bother. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Reid, Chafee, Lautenberg, myself, and others to 
partially restore Endangered Species Act funding.
  It is understandable in this era of budget balancing that endangered 
species programs take their fair share of cuts. However, the committee 
report provides far deeper than average cuts to endangered species 
programs. Whereas most programs have endured 15- to 20-percent cuts, 
endangered species program cuts are far greater--as much as 50 percent 
in some cases or zeroed out completely. I don't think this is necessary 
or advisable at the present time.
  A number of endangered species recovery programs are in progress and 
at a critical stage. They depend on actions by Federal, State, local, 
and private interests that will create and implement the most cost-
effective and flexible solutions to species recovery. Our amendment 
provides a partial restoration of cuts to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
programs that help State agencies through grants and assistance; 
technical assistance to private landowners; prelisting agreements that 
nip species declines in the bud and avoid the need for regulatory 
action; consultations between agencies; and habitat conservation plans 
that are now the preferred State-local-private approach for species 
recovery in complex cases.
  Funds in these areas are designed to reduce headaches for landowners 
and affected agencies of Federal, State, and local government. This 
amendment does not change the committee moratorium on listings of new 
species or new critical habitat designation--even though I strongly 
disagree with this moratorium. If we pull the rug out from the recovery 
programs in progress--those that have already been the subject of 
extensive public hearings and economic analysis required under the 
law--we will only make it more difficult and expensive to enact them in 
the future. The irony of this is that we hurt the very people and 
organizations that these funding cuts may have inadvertently been 
designed to protect--private landowners, State, and local agencies.
  We have had three very extensive reauthorization hearings in the last 
month on the Endangered Species Act. It is noteworthy that we have 
discovered very substantial common ground among many diverse interests 
on many issues. These include the need for positive incentives for 
those responsible for implementing on-the-ground programs, and the need 
for more State and local delegation. The amendment we offer today 
provides a partial restoration of funding for exactly these purposes. 
These funds will be highly leveraged by State, local, and private 
funds, and these depend on a certain amount of Federal coordination and 
seed money.
  The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is 
certainly operative in the case of this amendment: A relatively modest 
amount of funding in these few areas for the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and their State and local partners will ensure that we avoid headaches 
and irreversible losses in the future. If we do not move forward and 
honor our practical and ethical commitments to recovery programs 
already in progress, particularly those at critical stages, we will be 
abandoning a pledge that I firmly believe the American people have 
asked us repeatedly to honor.
  By cutting funds that are designed to resolve conflicts and provide 
State and local delegation and solutions, we are shooting ourselves in 
the foot. By restoring funds, at least partially, we stay ahead of the 
curve and give ourselves, our landowners, and our declining species of 
plants and animals a fighting chance. I think that we deserve it. I ask 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this as a sensible, 
prudent, and necessary step.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Reid/Chafee Amendment to restore funding for species 
conservation programs under the Endangered Species Act.
  Twenty-two years ago, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with 
large bipartisan majorities. Even at that time, hundreds of species had 
become extinct since the creation of the United States. Today, 
scientists estimate that we are losing up to 100 species a day around 
the world.
  While I acknowledge that the act has significant problems, the ESA 
also has achieved remarkable success in recovering species. One of 
these is Florida's American alligator.
  Today, of the 900 species that are listed in the United States as 
threatened or endangered, 238 of those are stable or improving, and 7 
species have been delisted. Americans understand that by protecting 
species, the Endangered Species Act protects us--our economy, our 
health, and our longterm existence. While we are pulling away from the 
brink of crisis, we cannot afford to reduce our vigilance on this 
issue. We should correct the shortcomings of the act, and benefit from 
all our efforts thus far.
  However, just as Congress is prepared to implement reforms to make 
the ESA work better, this appropriations bill undermines our efforts by 
cutting ESA science funding, outreach to landowners, and State 
assistance--the specific programs that will reduce conflicts. This 
budget would exacerbate 

[[Page S12013]]
rather than reduce problems we have identified with the ESA.
  The Reid-Chafee amendment will restore part of the disproportionate 
cut made in committee to endangered species programs, bringing it more 
in line with funding reductions in Interior across the board.
  More importantly, the Reid amendment invests money in the future of 
imperiled species, spending wisely now to save money in the long run. 
Two and one-half million dollars of the restored funds will go to 
prelisting programs that seek to conserve species before they reach the 
brink of extinction, forestalling the need for costly and sometimes 
controversial recovery efforts. In my own State, this funding will help 
prelisting activities to conserve the Florida black bear, to prevent it 
from going the way of the critically endangered Florida panther.
  Another $2 million will go to consultation activities under section 7 
of the ESA to help Federal agencies better fulfill their 
responsibilities under the ESA. Section 7 is a powerful tool for 
solving, and in many cases avoiding, conflicts between Federal agency 
activities and species conservation. In Florida, for example, Federal 
projects that may have gravely impacted the conservation of Florida 
panthers and West Indian manatees were modified through the section 7 
process in ways that did not significantly interfere with the projects 
and actually benefitted the species. It is hard to find a program where 
the money is better spent.
  Finally, $4 million would go to species recovery efforts. As Senator 
Kempthorne has emphasized in his very productive subcommittee hearings 
on the reauthorization of the ESA, recovery is, or should be, the heart 
of the ESA. Species such as the grizzly bear, the peregrine falcon--and 
our national symbol, the bald eagle--are recovered or recovering 
steadily due to ESA recovery efforts. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service need the resources to keep these successes coming. Again, 
expeditious recovery measures now will decrease the expense of recovery 
in the long run.
  Throughout its history, the ESA has enjoyed bipartisan support. The 
act was signed into law by President Nixon. The harm regulation was 
promulgated during the Ford administration, which was revamped to its 
current form during the Reagan administration. Now the program is being 
defended by the Clinton administration. There are many good reasons for 
this historical support. Let us bear them in mind, and address the 
act's obvious problems with consideration for the benefits that it has 
produced thus far.
  The Reid-Chafee amendment makes good fiscal sense, and will help 
conserve the endangered wildlife that all Americans value as part of 
this country's priceless natural heritage. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to address for just a 
moment the consultation and the recovery functions for endangered 
species. The consultations which must be conducted so the projects can 
go forward, the consultation and the recovery functions of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, were designed to make certain that species that are 
already on the list of threatened or endangered species are not in 
jeopardy, and to assure that they would come off of the list as rapidly 
as possible. The committee has funded these activities at about 60 
percent of the budget estimate.
  We have before us an amendment that restores approximately $4.5 
million to these activities. This is an amendment that I can support so 
far as it speeds the process of removing species off of the list.
  In hearings that I have held this year, it has been confirmed 
repeatedly that the failure to consult, the failure of agencies to meet 
deadlines, the failure of agencies to commit resources to consultation, 
have severely delayed projects and have resulted in unnecessary project 
costs and, in one instance, nearly resulted in economic disaster and 
threatened thousands of jobs in the State of Idaho.
  The February 1995 issue of Conservation Biology said that there were 
huge delays in the writing of 314 recovery plans completed through 
August 1991. The average time that it took to write a recovery plan 
involving an animal was 11.3 years; for plants it took 4.1 years. The 
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service stated at a recent hearing on 
the Endangered Species Act that their targeted goal was to reduce the 
time it takes to produce a recovery plan to 2\1/2\ years after a 
species is listed. It would be counterproductive for us to reduce the 
money available for them to accomplish this job.
  Another reason I want this money available is to make certain that 
consultations such as those that will be required, now that the Bruneau 
Hot Springs snail is considered by the courts to be a listed species, 
can indeed go forward. For those who may not be familiar with this 
issue, the Bruneau snail was listed as endangered, removed from listing 
for procedural reasons, and recently reinstated to listed status by the 
courts.
  During the months, and in fact even the years, it took, an entire 
regional economy in Idaho has been put on hold; consultations on farm 
loans and business loans and other projects that may affect the snail 
have been totally held up.
  We must at this juncture make certain there is enough money to 
conduct the consultations on species like the Bruneau snail.
  There is another example of why I support the increased funding for 
recovery and consultation. The recovery and ultimate delisting of the 
gray wolf, the controversial project of the administration, depends for 
its success on many things. One of the unknowns--a research problem 
with gray wolf--is the possible conflict between the wolf and another 
major predator, the mountain lion. The Honecker Institute is conducting 
important research into this issue. This research, that is funded out 
of this appropriation, must be done to resolve a major gray wolf issue.
  Mr. President, I do join, then, with Senator Reid, who is the ranking 
member of the subcommittee. I enjoyed working with him. I also want to 
state that there is a moratorium in place. The moratorium is in place 
so we can reauthorize, and in fact reform, the Endangered Species Act.
  These funds must not be used contrary to the intent of that current 
moratorium. In fact, I support the extension of that moratorium.
  Mr. President, I support the continuation of the moratorium on 
further listings and designations of critical habitat under the 
Endangered Species Act until the act is reauthorized.
  Earlier this year, a 6-month moratorium on further listings was 
signed into law. I supported that amendment.
  Unfortunately, since the moratorium took effect, courts have twice 
required the Department of the Interior to take actions counter to the 
moratorium's intent. The courts ordered the designation of critical 
habitat for the Mexican spotted owl throughout the Southwest and the 
reinstatement of the Bruneau Hot Springs snail on the endangered 
species list.
  In those cases, and in similar cases over the years, the courts have 
stated they might have ruled differently had it not been for the 
wording of the Endangered Species Act, which leaves them no other 
choice but to supersede other laws--including the moratorium. We must 
reform the Endangered Species Act in such a way to make sure it does 
not become the super law that overrules all other laws of our Nation.
  In my Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee, we have 
held eight hearings in Washington and field hearings in Oregon and 
Idaho on reauthorization and reform of the act. We have heard some 
honest and blunt testimony on the impacts of the act. We've heard from 
both advocates of the act and those who favor its reform. We have heard 
from the administration. While all witnesses may not agree on the 
future of the act, they do agree that the ESA is in need of reform. 
We've heard it from unemployed loggers in Idaho, environmentalists, and 
the Secretary of the Interior. The Endangered Species Act has failed 
and must be reformed.
  For years, Secretary Babbitt insisted the ESA only needed some fine 
tuning. At one of our hearings he clearly and forcefully stated it is 
time to reform the act.
  Continuing this moratorium gives us the time to do the job and do it 
right.
  This is not a regional issue. It is not just a Western concern. 
Senators from 

[[Page S12014]]
North Carolina to Washington; Arizona to Virginia will tell you of the 
overreaching effect of the Endangered Species Act on their States. 
Whether you are talking about Texas, where more than 800,000 acres of 
land in more than 30 counties were proposed for critical habitat for 
the golden-cheeked warbler or Alabama where a relatively common 
sturgeon has been repeatedly proposed for listing--we are all affected.
  Everyone agrees the Endangered Species Act must be reformed, and 
soon. I am committed to getting a reform bill passed by the Senate this 
year. Keeping this time out on further listings and designations of 
critical habitat in place will only help us get the job done soon, and 
get it done well. We need to lower the rhetoric and allow for rational 
discussion of the legitimate issues facing ESA reform. I believe by 
removing the potential for new listings of species and habitat for a 
while, we can proceed with meaningful ESA reform that will serve the 
best interests of private landowners, resource users, nature lovers, 
and the very species we are trying to save.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Gorton, who has been a leader on 
this whole issue of the Endangered Species Act, and thank Senator Byrd 
for his continual assistance on these matters as we move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho leaves the 
floor, I want to extend my public appreciation again for the fair 
manner in which he has conducted the hearings and the studies that the 
committee has been engaged in, in arriving at the point where we can 
attempt to have legislation that will reauthorize the Endangered 
Species Act.
  The Senator from Idaho and I on some occasions--not a lot of 
occasions--have disagreements about philosophy relating to the 
Endangered Species Act. He has conducted himself with the highest 
standards of government in the hearings he has held. I want him to know 
publicly how much I appreciate the work he has done in that 
subcommittee. He is an asset to the U.S. Senate.
  I just want to say briefly, the money that is taken from the Bureau 
of Mines--it is the only program I think in this bill that was funded 
at the level the President asked, even though it is below last year's 
level. It is a real hit to the Bureau of Mines. We did, under the 
direction and guidance of the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Byrd, limit any cuts to programs that would not 
include health and safety. So I appreciate, as others have stated here, 
the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia and the help and 
guidance of the Senator from Washington, who is managing the bill 
today.
  I have no more speakers on this. If it is in keeping with the wishes 
of the manager of the bill, we could move forward with adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, indeed, the Senator from Nevada is 
correct. This amendment was modified, changed, and worked out to the 
satisfaction of all concerned and to my satisfaction and that of the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  I believe at this point, unless there is further debate, we are 
prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2308) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


     Vote On The Committee Amendment On Page 9, Line 23, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the underlying 
committee amendment? If not, the question occurs on the amendment.
  The amendment on page 9, line 23, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, next in line will be the Senator from 
North Carolina. I believe, however, that his amendment is appropriately 
an amendment to one or both of the committee amendments on page 9 and 
page 10.
  So, if he will permit me, I will ask that those amendments be called 
up and his amendment would be to those.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.


                Committee Amendment on Page 10, Line 12

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be informed the Senate has 
agreed to the amendment on page 9. We are now on the amendment on page 
10.
  Mr. GORTON. Then I call up the amendment on page 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending business.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be accepted but it be considered as original text for the purpose of 
further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment on page 10, line 12, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 2309

           (Purpose: To Save the American Taxpayers $968,000)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the desk. 
I ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the remaining committee 
amendments will be set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2309.

  Mr. HELMS. 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 19, strike the word ``Act.'' and insert: 
     ``Act: Provided, That no monies appropriated under this act 
     shall be used to implement and carry out the Red Wolf 
     reintroduction program and that the amount appropriated under 
     this paragraph shall be reduced by $968,000.''

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes to save the 
American taxpayers almost $1 million by eliminating funding for the so-
called Red Wolf Program, which has created an enormous problem for the 
people of North Carolina. This Red Wolf Program is administered by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. President, 63 red wolves were released by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service onto Federal lands, but they just did not stay there. They have 
increasingly encroached on private property to the point that they have 
become hazardous and a menace to private property owners, their 
families, their animals, their livestock, and so on.
  Mr. President, the Red Wolf Program was created in 1987. It has 
already cost the American taxpayers $5,224,500. According to a March 
1995 report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 63 wolves 
originally released in eastern North Carolina in 1987 have multiplied. 
Today there are at least 170 or more wolves in eastern North Carolina. 
At least 70 wolves have been born in the wild during the past 8 years. 
That amounts to an increase of more than 100 percent in the population 
of red wolves in less than 8 years.
  Since 1987 the Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted 934 monitoring 
flights over that entire area to monitor the location of these red 
wolves, at a cost of untold thousands of dollars--934 airplane flights 
to monitor these transplanted red wolves. And the administration has 
requested another $968,000 for this very same program for the coming 
year.
  I am told that the States of Tennessee and South Carolina have the 
same difficulty with the red wolves because the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has transplanted and relocated red wolves in those two States 
as well.
  Mr. President these wolves are predatory animals, and they have 
become an exceedingly dangerous presence in eastern North Carolina. 
They slink onto private property, they attack and feed upon farm 
animals and livestock, and we have reports that at least one child has 
been bitten by a red wolf and had to undergo tetanus treatment.
  We have received all sorts of mail from eastern North Carolina. We 
have 

[[Page S12015]]
mail from organizations such as the North Carolina Farm Bureau and the 
Hyde County, NC, officials, and from concerned citizens all over. They 
oppose vigorously this Red Wolf Program because it has become 
increasingly dangerous to the people, to their private property, and to 
their farm animals.
  The chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Hyde County, NC, put it 
this way. And I quote him:

       Red wolves have caused a lot of hardship in Hyde, . . . 
     endangered species have more land rights than the landowner 
     paying the property taxes.

  But the bottom line is that these red wolves have become such a 
dangerous problem that the Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations 
on April 13 finally allowing property owners to shoot these predatory 
animals on their land. And the farmers and other landowners feel that 
they ought not to have to go to that extreme. They want an end to the 
program, and I think that it has served its purpose, if it ever had 
one.
  In any case, for a long time authorities have been contending that 
reintroduction programs, which is what the Fish and Wildlife Service 
calls them, do not work very well.
  I have in hand a report published by the New York Times on October 5, 
1993, which emphasizes that these reintroduction programs are useless. 
Michael Phillips, the field coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, was quoted by the New York Times as saying, and I am quoting 
him:

       Most things we have tried to orchestrate in the wild have 
     not worked. The pairs we put out did not stay together and 
     the families did not stay in the places we chose.

  So, Mr. President, so the many good citizens in eastern North 
Carolina resent this waste of taxpayers' money. They do not want these 
predators roaming their property, attacking their farm animals and 
livestock, and being a peril to their children.
  According to the committee report, private property owners in Idaho 
and Montana are experiencing the same sort of problems as a result of 
the gray wolf reintroduction program.
  All of it indicates to me--and I address this specifically for myself 
and my State, the Red Wolf Program--that this red wolf program is a bad 
idea whose time never came. I hope that we will not waste any more of 
the taxpayers' dollars on it.
  The pending amendment proposes to abolish the program by eliminating 
the proposed $968,000 for its continuance for 1 more year.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is more or less in the form of a 
notice that I have listened to the Senator from North Carolina. He is 
dealing with an issue which is almost exclusively contained within his 
own State. Personally, I defer to his judgment on the matter and tend 
to support him in his amendment. At the same time, I recognize--and I 
believe he recognizes--that this could well be considered to be a 
relatively controversial amendment that would require a rollcall.
  So what I should like to do at this time is simply put Members on 
both sides of the aisle on notice that the Senator from North Carolina 
has spoken to the amendment, and we will deal with it much as we dealt 
with the amendment of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] this morning, 
and state that if there are those who are going to oppose the 
amendment, would they please notify us? Better than that, will they 
please come to the floor so they can debate the amendment?
  If I may request of the Senator from North Carolina to withhold his 
request for the yeas and nays, and if no one comes to oppose the 
amendment in an hour or so, we will simply accept it by a voice vote. 
But if it is going to be opposed, we will certainly have a rollcall 
vote on it.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator made a 
proposition that I cannot refuse. As the Prince of Denmark was once 
reported to have said, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the manager of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, once again, this amendment by the Senator 
from North Carolina on the reintroduction of the red wolves is a 
significant amendment. If there are those who are going to debate the 
Senator from North Carolina on it or object to it, we would appreciate 
notice from them reasonably promptly.
  Mr. President, we know that we have one other amendment that will be 
contested. It will be proposed by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] 
regarding the stewardship of an incentive program. We hope that we can 
get him to come to the floor as promptly as possible.
  We have cleared a few other amendments for a wrap-up session. But it 
is now 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Most of these contentious amendments 
on this bill have been debated and voted on.
  We urge Members to tell us now whether or not they want to have their 
amendments considered. And there is no better time to come and have an 
amendment considered than right now. If Members want that kind of 
consideration, would they come as promptly as possible?
  With that, and waiting with bated breath the next Senator who wishes 
to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification of Amendment No. 2295

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
2295, which was adopted last night, be modified by striking any 
reference to ``December'' and inserting in each such place 
``November''.
  This agreement is cleared on both sides and is necessary for the 
amendment to be internally consistent and also consistent with the 
assertions by its sponsors that it was a 90-day moratorium on the 
Secretary of Interior implementing any grazing regulations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Committee amendment on page 16, Line 4

                Committee amendment on page 21, line 24

                 Committee amendment on page 22, line 5

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that there are three remaining 
committee amendments that have not been adopted. May I inquire whether 
that is correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those three 
committee amendments be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc and they 
be considered as original text for purpose of amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 
further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and that I be allowed to offer an 
amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S12016]]



                           Amendment No. 2310

           (Purpose: To restore funding for Indian education)

  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 bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], proposes 
     amendment numbered 2310.

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

       On page 89, line 8, strike ``$54,660,000'' and insert 
     ``$81,341,000''.
       On page 136, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 3 . PRO RATA REDUCTION.

       The amounts provided in this Act, not required for payments 
     by law, are reduced by 2 percent on a pro rata basis. The 
     reduction required by this section shall be made in a uniform 
     manner for each program, project, or activity provided in 
     this Act.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment will restore $26.6 
million for Indian education programs that are funded on a competitive 
basis through the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education.
  Under the amendment, the office's programs would be maintained in 
1996 at the 1995 level of $81 million. The committee has appropriated 
and has contained in this bill $54 million for this purpose already. 
And I appreciate that very much, but I do want my colleagues to know 
that this level of funding would represent more than a 30-percent cut 
from the current-year level. It would represent the complete 
elimination of the office's competitive grant program which 
specifically awards funding to Indian tribes and tribal organizations 
that work with the public schools and the community on a variety of 
education issues.
  This funding is vitally needed because it supplements but it does not 
directly fund our Nation's public schools; and those are the schools, 
Mr. President, which educate 90 percent of our American Indian 
children.
  Without the amendment and the restoration of the competitive grant 
program, we will be eliminating special services for Indian students in 
public schools. We will be eliminating training for their teachers and 
critically needed adult education and GED programs that are operated by 
Indian tribes and Indian people.
  Mr. President, this is not fluff money. This is funding that is 
awarded on a highly competitive basis. It does not even come close to 
meeting the actual need which has been demonstrated.
  In 1990 to 1994 this Office of Indian Education received a total of 
$75 million in competitive funding requests from Indian tribes and 
Indian organizations. It was able to fund less than 50 percent of the 
requests it received during that 4-year period. Only the programs of 
the highest quality were funded due to the very competitive nature of 
these grants.
  I want to make sure that my colleagues understand this, that I am not 
offering an amendment that would allocate money out to school districts 
on a formula basis. The funding that is involved with this amendment is 
specifically designed to keep the Indian tribes and Indian people 
involved in the education of their own children, in the education of 
their own young people and the adults in those tribes and Indian 
organizations.
  Mr. President, I have heard many speeches on this Senate floor about 
empowering people to do things for themselves. These funds that we are 
trying to restore in this amendment empower Indian tribes and Indian 
people to take a hand in educating their own children. That is the 
specific purpose of these funds. And it is for that reason that I 
believe it is important that we maintain the current level of funding. 
As I mentioned earlier, the funds enable tribes to operate GED classes 
and other adult education classes. It helps to train the teachers who 
will teach these Indian students. It provides fellowships and grants to 
Indian students who wish to pursue higher education and through a 
specific set-aside it funds several Indian control schools including 
schools in Wisconsin and in Minnesota and in the Dakotas.
  Last year Indian-controlled schools in Minnesota received $1 and $2 
million in competitive grant funding. That is two different schools in 
Minnesota. Unless the amendment that I am offering here is approved, 
these schools will not even have the opportunity to apply for funding 
in the upcoming year. They will get nothing because there will be no 
program through which we can fund them.
  Mr. President, there are many types of programs funded under this 
program. Let me give a few examples. The Yaqui tribe in Arizona has a 
program for curriculum development for dropout prevention, for support 
systems, for students in those schools. In Washington State, the South 
Puget Intertribal Planning and Seattle Indian Center has a dropout 
intervention and GED program. That is funded through these funds.
  In Alaska the Bristol Bay Native American Corps has a dropout and 
counseling and testing center that they fund. In Oklahoma there is a 
Cross Cultural Education Center that provides basic skills, classes and 
dropout prevention programs for Indian students.
  In my own State, the Pueblo Zuni have programs in basic academic 
skills, enhancement and dropout prevention. New Mexico State University 
in the past has had a summer program for Indian youth in science and 
math which is funded through the funds that I am proposing to maintain 
with this amendment.
  In Wyoming, there is the Northern Plains Education Foundation, also a 
dropout prevention program that they have there.
  In Nevada, we have the Fallen Pauite Shoshoni Tribe and the Pyramid 
Lake Pauite Tribe. They have the basic skills and dropout prevention 
program as well.
  Mr. President, my Indian constituents recently reminded me that the 
very first contract with America was between the Federal Government and 
the Indian people of this country.
  In school districts such as the Gallop-McKinley school district in my 
State of New Mexico, Indian students need the services that this 
appropriation provides, and the school district serving them relies 
upon these Federal funds. These funds provide the services that enhance 
the cultural relevance and success of mainstream public education for 
students. They empower the Indian tribes and Indian people to remain 
involved in the education of their own children, even when these 
children are in public schools.
  We ought not to be cutting programs that are essential for the very 
neediest in our society, and unless we adopt this amendment, that is 
exactly what we would be doing in this bill.
  Mr. President, I think there are going to be many examples this 
year--we have already seen a few and we will see more when we come back 
from our August recess--where we are proposing to cut funding for 
education. As I go around my State of New Mexico and talk to people, 
that is not the priority that the people of my State have. They want us 
to maintain funding for education. In fact, if there is any additional 
funding to be used, they want it added to education.
  Ninety percent of the Indian students in my State and in the country, 
in fact, get their education through the public schools, and the funds 
that are involved in this program are the funds that are helping those 
public schools to provide better education and are helping the Indian 
organizations and the tribal governments to participate in that.
  Last Sunday, on July 30, Louis Gerstner, the CEO of IBM, told the 
Governors in their meeting in Vermont that America's top priorities 
should be setting ``absolutely the highest academic standards and 
holding all of us accountable for results. Now. Immediately. This 
school year.''
  He went on to say, ``Now if we don't do that, we won't need anymore 
goals, because we are going nowhere. Without standards and 
accountability, we have nothing.''
  Mr. President, I compliment Mr. Gerstner for his strong commitment to 
improving education. We need to demonstrate that same commitment in the 
U.S. Senate. This amendment will help us to do that.
  The offset that I have identified in this amendment and which I am 
sure is not ideal, since no offset is ideal, but it 

[[Page S12017]]
is the least painful of those that I come up with, essentially involves 
a 2 percent prorated reduction in funding for all other accounts 
covered by this bill. With that kind of a 2-percent reduction on a 
prorated basis, we can have the necessary $26 million which is 
necessary to keep funding in 1996 at the same level that we have it in 
1995 for these very important programs that help to educate Indian 
children in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with regret, I am going to have to oppose 
this amendment first, by saying that, again, if you focus on only one 
line item in this appropriations bill or in all appropriations bill, 
you reach one conclusion. If you take the budget of the United States 
as a whole, you come up with an entirely different conclusion. It is 
correct that this particular Indian education program is subjected to a 
$27 million reduction under the amount for the current year. In that, 
the Senator from New Mexico is entirely correct. But that is only one 
small part of the moneys which are devoted to Indian education.
  For the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the schools that it conducts, a 
subject of the debate last night and early this morning, there is 
actually a small increase in the appropriation in this bill, one of a 
tiny handful of functions in the entire bill which is actually 
increased over 1995 in attempting to reach our goal of an 11-percent 
overall reduction.
  But that figure pales to insignificance in comparison with the $470 
million which goes into Indian education programs administered by the 
Department of Education outside of this appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I do not think Members know that Indian children are 
the subject of impact aid payments to the school districts that provide 
education for them. Impact aid is something with which every Member of 
this body is familiar. It is the added payments made by the Federal 
Government for people who live on or work on Federal reservations, for 
children in school, by reason of the tax exemption of the lands on 
those Federal reservations.
  So, for example, a child who is in a military family, with a family 
living on a military reservation, entitles the school district 
educating that child to impact aid. Indian children get that impact aid 
exactly as everybody else that is its subject.
  This bill includes $318 million, way more than the entire budget that 
we are talking about, in impact aid for Indian children. In fact, 
Indian children are doubly privileged, because they get all the impact 
aid and they get this program to which this amendment is an amendment, 
in addition. So we are not speaking about the only or even the 
principal program which provides educational assistance for Indian 
children. I simply want to repeat, other parts of the budget and the 
appropriations bill which we will adopt include $470 million for that 
purpose. It is infinitely more than what we are speaking about here.
  But, Mr. President, at the same time, this amendment proposes to take 
money out of every other program covered by this bill, ironically 
including every other Indian program. So a significant portion of it 
will be transferred from other Indian programs.
  I have already made the commitment to the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, who chairs the Indian Affairs Committee, that when we arrive 
at a final amount of money for Indian programs, we will work with him 
for those internal priorities. This proposal sets those priorities by 
taking additional money from every other Indian program for this 
together with money from the National Park Service, which we have 
attempted to protect because of its obvious importance, for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, on which we have just had a long 
debate and a restoration of certain amounts of money, for energy 
programs, for our national forests, literally for everything else in 
this bill.
  So everything in this bill, every program, every project, every 
agency, every responsibility is reduced by this amendment
 in order to deal with a single line item, which is far from the most 
important line item for the education of our children.

  Mr. President, for that reason, I believe it should be rejected. I 
believe, also, that we would have a rollcall on it.
  Does the Senator from New Mexico desire a rollcall vote?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would desire a rollcall. I would like 
a few minutes to respond.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Before the Senator from New Mexico speaks again, I will 
just say that we are going to attempt to stack the vote on this 
amendment with the vote on the amendment by the Senator from North 
Carolina on wolves and any other we may have. I hope perhaps we will 
settle with the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will indulge me for a moment, I understand 
that we may well have an agreement on mine. If we did, if it reaches 
that point, maybe we can take 15 seconds, and I would ask at that point 
that whatever is pending be set aside, and we can put all the 
statements in the Record and agree to it.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be delighted.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to respond to 
the comments of the Senator. Let me give my perspective on where we 
find ourselves, because I think it is important to always identify the 
context.
  In my view, the budget resolution that was approved by the Senate and 
the House of Representatives has in it a very misguided set of 
priorities, and that is part of what is driving us to debate cuts 
within this Interior appropriations bill at this point. We are seeing 
that we have a bill coming up again tomorrow on defense matters, where 
we are proposing, under that budget resolution, to add $7 billion to 
what the President has asked for and to what the Pentagon has asked 
for, primarily to fund Member-interest items, which is usually referred 
to in the public arena as ``pork,'' at the same time that we are 
cutting funds for Indian education throughout this country.
  So we have a very misguided set of priorities that have driven us to 
the situation that we find ourselves in today. For that reason, of 
course, I oppose that budget resolution.
  Let me say that even within this bill I have great difficulty 
relating to the characterization that my colleague and friend from 
Washington made that the Indian students in this country are doubly 
privileged by getting impact aid funds plus other types of funds. The 
impact aid funds are clearly intended to make up for the loss of the 
local tax base. That is what that is. That is not free money. That is a 
result of the fact that local communities have no ability to tax 
locally, and, therefore, the Federal Government has said we will 
provide some level of assistance to offset the loss of revenue from the 
loss of that tax base.
  The truth is that the Indian students in my State--at least, when I 
go around and visit schools, those schools are not luxurious; those are 
large classes, and those students do not have any kind of special 
privileges by virtue of being Indian students.
  A principal of one of the schools in Gallup County came to see me--
Karen Woods from Jefferson Elementary in Gallup-McKinley County. She 
said to me--and I think this is her perspective in trying to prepare 
for the new school year which will begin later this month--what she is 
facing is cuts in support for kindergarten. She is having to go from a 
full day down to a half day. There are cuts in counselors from the 
elementary school, cuts in bilingual education and funds for tutors, 
and cuts in chapter 1. She will have lost the first grade side-by-side 
program, as she explained it to me. Summer school for elementary 
students has been lost. Home school liaison program, which she had 
before, has been lost. Now we are proposing in this bill that the funds 
which she might have applied for to supplement public school funds to 
assist the Indian students, in particular, which the various tribes 
could have applied for, will also be cut.
  So I think it represents a very misguided set of priorities. I hope 
very 

[[Page S12018]]
much that we can do this. I wish we did not have to take a 2 percent 
reduction in the other accounts in this bill in order to at least 
maintain level funding for this year in this vitally important program. 
But that is the only way that I can figure out how to do it.
  I think, on balance, that is the right set of priorities. On balance, 
we should be putting our children first and putting the education of 
our children first. I think our obligation in the Federal Government is 
nowhere greater than in the education of the Indian children in this 
country.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
vote for it when we come to a final vote.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
the promptness in dealing with this amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that we return to consideration of the Helms amendment and that we hear 
from the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2309

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the Helms 
amendment that we have just returned to. What this amendment does is 
provide that no moneys appropriated under this act shall be used to 
implement or carry out the red wolf introduction program.
  Mr. President, the amendment goes on to say, ``and that the amount 
appropriated under this paragraph shall be reduced by $968,000.''
  It is agreeable with the Senator from North Carolina that that last 
phrase I just stated--``and that the amount appropriated under this 
paragraph shall be reduced by $968,000''--can be stricken.
  Now, Mr. President, I presume that to have that amendment modified to 
that extent would have to come from the individual presenter of the 
amendment; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It can be done by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, the Senator from North Carolina might come back. If 
he does, I would prefer to have him do it. If he does not, at the 
conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to have that 
stricken.
  I will proceed pending the return of the Senator from North Carolina, 
if he chooses to come back. He and I discussed this, and there is no 
doubt of his position on this particular clause.
  Mr. President, a little review of the record. In 1967, which was 28 
years ago, the red wolf was listed as endangered. By 1980, which was 
some 15 years ago, the red wolf was officially declared as extinct in 
the wild. It was gone, except in a few zoos.
  In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced red wolves into 
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which is in Dare County, 
NC. The red wolf population was determined to be what they call a 
``nonessential experimental population.'' In other words, they released 
these pairs of wolves with the hope that they would come back and 
repropagate. Nonetheless, they are not a strictly experimental 
population. By calling them ``nonessential,'' it meant that if they 
trespass out of their areas and so forth, they could be shot by the 
local individuals in the area if they destroyed wildlife and so forth 
or farm animals.
  Now, a minimum of 40 to 50 red wolves are known to exist in the area 
now. In 1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a second 
reintroduction effort in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Part 
of it is in North Carolina and part of it is in Tennessee.
  In addition, there are some 200,000 acres of privately owned land 
that is part of the recovery program. I presume that the great bulk of 
that privately owned land is owned by timber companies, not by somebody 
with a plot of 2 to 5 acres, but instead hundreds, indeed, thousands of 
acres owned by the timber companies.
  A bill to allow private landowners to trap and kill red wolves on 
private lands in certain parts of North Carolina was passed by the 
State legislature and went into effect in January of this year. 
Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated a special rule 
providing more flexible management to private landowners.
 In other words, this is treated somewhat differently than strictly an 
endangered species. There is no taking. You cannot shoot, you cannot 
trap them.

  Mr. President, I was interested to discover that there are two red 
wolves in a captive breeding program in Roger Williams Park Zoo in our 
capital city of Providence, RI. An effort is being made throughout the 
country to bring back this species that, indeed, was declared extinct 
in the wild, and considerable success has attended it.
  With this amendment by the distinguished senior Senator, my longtime 
seatmate--we sit side by side and have for some 12 or 14 years--would 
provide that no moneys appropriated under this act--that is the 
Endangered Species Act--or the Interior appropriations, could be used 
in connection to implement or carry out the red wolf reintroduction 
program.
  I think that is unfortunate, Mr. President. I know that the senior 
Senator from North Carolina has ticked off some occasions when red 
wolves have attacked livestock, but I think those are relatively rare 
situations.
  What I worry about, Mr. President, is that each of us can come in and 
tick off individually these species that have been reintroduced in our 
States, and we do not want that.
  We all know in the Senate there is what they call senatorial 
prerogatives--a privilege, a deference. Both Senators from North 
Carolina are Republicans. I presume that the traditional deference will 
be granted to them. It would not make any difference if they were both 
Democrats, or one Democrat and one Republican. Judicial deference will 
be granted by many, saying if that is what you want in your State, that 
is your business.
  I think there is another view to this, Mr. President. I think it is 
to the advantage of all of us as a nation, as members of this society, 
as Americans, to have these populations come back. If they get out of 
hand, if we have wolves roaming all over the place and killing 
livestock--sheep and cattle, ducks, chickens, whatever it might be--
there are ways of handling that. No question about it.
  I do not think they represent a threat. I think the country is better 
off if we have some red wolves in these great national forests or great 
national parks or wildlife refuges, whatever they might be.
  I might point out, Mr. President, that where these are taking place 
is in lands that belong to all of us. It is not just lands that belong 
to the folks in North Carolina or the folks in Tennessee. They belong 
to all of us.
  Mr. President, I am sorry that this amendment has been presented. I 
suspect there will be considerable support for it. I indicated to the 
Senator from North Carolina that I would not be voting for it. I wanted 
to point out to others my feelings on it, and those that chose not to 
vote for it, obviously, I would be grateful for that likewise.
  I think more than this particular case, Mr. President, yes, if we 
agree with red wolves, that is all right, the world will not come to a 
stop, but where do we go from here? What is next? What is after this?
  Then, I believe, going after a grizzly or another type of wolf, no 
matter what it is. These have been declared endangered species, and in 
some cases extinct species, as in the case of the red wolf. Again, I 
want to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina for taking out the last part dealing with the specific sums.
  Now, why did he do that? He was gracious enough to do that because I 
pointed out to him that when he takes money from the recovery funds, it 
means that whole series of other animals and species and flora, there 
is less money for that recovery program.
  There is a long list of things seeking to be protected under the 
recovery moneys which are very, very limited. I think total it is $36 
million in all. This would cut that by nearly $1 million. An hour or so 
ago on this floor we managed, with the help of the distinguished 
managers of the bill, to increase that part in the recovery program by 
about $1.5 million. We are cutting it by $1 million. I am thankful, and 
I want to express my appreciation to Senator Helms in that particular 
provision.
  Mr. President, I do not see the Senator here. I know it is with his 
approval that I ask unanimous consent that the final clause in the 
amendment 

[[Page S12019]]
of the Senator which follows the word ``program'' be eliminated. That 
is, the clause that says ``and that the amount appropriated under this 
paragraph shall be reduced by $960,000.''
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, the Senator assures us 
this has been agreed to by the sponsor?
  Mr. CHAFEE. No question about that, otherwise I would not be doing 
it.
  Mr. GORTON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2309), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 10, line 19, strike the word ``Act.'' and insert: 
     ``Act: Provided, That no monies appropriated under this act 
     shall be used to implement and carry out the Red Wolf 
     reintroduction program.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been occupied across the hall, but I 
did have the opportunity to speak to the senior Senator from Rhode 
Island. I have to say that I do not agree with this amendment. I think 
that it sets a very bad precedent for us to start micromanaging what is 
going on in the Interior Department.
  We already have established a moratorium with further listing of 
endangered species. Now we are coming in here with line-specific 
legislation dealing with a red wolf. I do not know about the red wolf. 
I do not think most people in this body know a great deal about the red 
wolf. I think that most of this body should agree we are not capable of 
legislating.
  Because of the simple fact that one of the Senators, for whatever 
reason, decides he does not want something done with a specific animal 
or specie of plant in his State, he should not come in here and 
legislate something to be done or not done.
  I think that we are legislating, of course, on an appropriations 
bill. This is a piecemeal approach, especially in light of the work 
that Senator Kempthorne and I are engaged in to reauthorize the 
Endangered Species Act. On that matter, we have held five subcommittee 
hearings. There are more hearings scheduled for the recess a week from 
today. There is one in Casper, WY.
  We intend to address the concerns of private landowners. The 
President, within the past 30 days, issued an Executive order that the 
Endangered Species Act basically does not apply to a private landowner 
owning less than 5 acres.
  I just think this is wrong. I think it is a wrong way to legislate. 
This Interior appropriations bill is an important bill. I think this is 
wrong. I am not going to go into a lot more detail other than to say, 
Mr. President, that I move to table the Helms amendment and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Could I inquire of the Senator from New Mexico whether he 
will be prepared to go to a vote on his amendment after the disposition 
of this vote?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, 
be listed as a cosponsor of my amendment. I understand the yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me ask the Senator from Washington if it is 
appropriate to ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes in between to 
explain my amendment; he could have 2.
  Mr. GORTON. It is certainly OK.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I prefer that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 376 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2309), as 
modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2310
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes equally divided on the 
Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a minute and then defer 
to the Senator from Washington, and then take the last minute to make a 
final plea for this amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment would restore $126.6 million for Indian 
education programs that are funded on a competitive basis. The funds go 
to Indian tribes and Indian tribal organizations.
  The bill, as it presently stands, contemplates a 34-percent cut in 
these funds for Indian education. I think that is not a responsible 
course for us to follow.
  The amendment has an offset, which essentially is a 2-percent 
reduction across the board in all other accounts covered by the bill. I 
know that is not a good result in the eyes of many people, but I do 
think that the priority of this Senate should be to put in funds for 
the education of our children and particularly the Indian children of 
this country who depend upon the Federal Government for support.
  I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this account represents no more than 10 
percent of all of the money which goes into the education of Indian 
children. The great bulk of this account goes to school districts that 
educate Indian children. But those Indian children already get a credit 
through impact aid just as do other children on Federal reservations 
and the like.
  I wish to repeat, impact aid applies to Indian children. This is over 
and above impact aid. The impact aid budget for this year is some five 
or six times greater than the amount that is included in this fund.
  There is more than $470 million in the Department of Education for 
Indian education. The BIA line in this bill has more money for Indian 
education than it does for the current year, one of the tiny handful of 
programs that actually gets an increase.
  And yet the Senator from New Mexico will take money, significant 
amounts of money from our National Park System, from our cultural 
institutions, from our scientific institutions, and ironically this cut 
will apply to all of the other Indian programs which were spoken of 
earlier today. They will also lose. The amendment I believe should be 
rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that this 
amendment goes to the funding which is intended for tribes and tribal 
organizations to assist in the education of their own children. These 
are the only funds anywhere in this bill or, as far as I know, anywhere 
in any of the appropriations bills that are intended to empower tribes 
to assist in the education of their own children. 

[[Page S12020]]

  We give a lot of speeches about empowering people to do things. I 
think this is a priority. I think we ought to fund this. I regret that 
we are having to reduce other accounts by 2 percent, but this is a 
higher priority. I would rather reduce those accounts 2 percent than 
this funding level here, 34 percent, which is what the present bill 
calls for.
  Mr. President, I think the yeas and nays have been requested already.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to table the Bingaman amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bingaman amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 377 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     McCain
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pell
     Robb
     Simon
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2310) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
the Secretary of the Interior to Senator Hatfield on the subject of the 
Western Water Policy Review Commission be printed in the Record. This 
letter relates to language included in the Interior appropriations 
bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to convey to you the 
     Administration's commitment to establish the Western Water 
     Policy Review Commission as called for in Public Law 102-575 
     by the end of September 1995. The Department will publish the 
     Commission's Charter in the Federal Register by that date and 
     constitute the Commission.
       I look forward to working with you and other members of 
     Congress on the important work of this Commission.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.
               Amendments Nos. 2311 through 2324, En Bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe at this point that we have no 
more contested amendments. We do have a few left that have not been 
completely cleared at this point. But in order to facilitate progress, 
I will now offer a series of amendments, en bloc, that have been 
cleared and ask for their immediate consideration:
  An amendment, No. 2311, by Senator Byrd on the use of AML funds;
  An amendment, No. 2312, by Senator Craig on Clearwater National 
Forest;
  An amendment, No. 2313, by Senator Jeffords on indemnity provisions 
within the National Endowment for the Arts;
  An amendment, No. 2314, by Senator Kyl on the Indian arts and crafts 
board;
  An amendment, No. 2315, by Senator McCain on fossil energy research 
and development;
  An amendment, No. 2316, by Senator Snowe transferring National Park 
Service funds from land acquisition to the national recreation and 
preservation fund;
  An amendment, No. 2317, by Senator Hutchison on the NBS aerial 
surveys;
  An amendment, No. 2318, by Senator Specter on Kane Experimental 
Forest;
  An amendment, No. 2319, by Senator Baucus on Lolo National Forest;
  An amendment, No. 2320, by Senator Domenici on petroglyphs;
  An amendment, No. 2321, by Senator Murkowski on Denali North access;
  An amendment, No. 2322, by Senator Murkowski on stampede mine;
  An amendment, No. 2323, by Senators McConnell and Ford on the 
Department of Energy appliance standards;
  An amendment, No. 2324, by Senator Leahy on stewardship incentives 
program.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, all of these amendments have been cleared on 
this side of the aisle. I support the manager's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2311 through 2324, en bloc.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2311

   (Purpose: To clarify the availability of funds for abandoned mine 
                       environmental restoration)

       On page 30, line 17, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available to 
     States under title IV of Public Law 95-87 may be used, at 
     their discretion, for any required non-Federal share of the 
     cost of projects funded by the Federal Government for the 
     purpose of environmental restoration related to treatment or 
     abatement of acid mine drainage from abandoned mines: 
     Provided further, That such projects must be consistent with 
     the purposes and priorities of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2312

(Purpose: To provide that the adoption of an amendment to the resource 
   management plan for the Clearwater National Forest under section 
    314(c)(2) of the bill will satisfy the requirement for revision 
 referred to in the Stipulation of Dismissal dated September 13, 1993, 
                   relating to that national forest)

       On page 118, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(7) On the signing of a record of decision or equivalent 
     document making an amendment for the Clearwater National 
     Forest pursuant to paragraph (2), the requirement for 
     revision referred to in the Stipulation of Dismissal dated 
     September 13, 1993, applicable to the Clearwater National 
     Forest is deemed to be satisfied, and the interim management 
     direction provisions contained in the Stipulation Dismissal 
     shall be of no further effect with respect to the Clearwater 
     National Forest.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2313

       At the appropriate place (end of page 136) add the 
     following new section:
       Public Law 94-158 is modified to extend the scope of the 
     Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to include exhibitions 
     originating in the United States and touring the United 
     States for indemnification subject to the availability of 
     funds.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2314

(Purpose: To provide for the continued operation of the Indian Arts and 
                             Crafts Board)

       On page 31, line 15, strike ``$997,221,000'' and insert 
     ``$997,534,000''.
       On page 31, line 16, after ``which'' insert the following: 
     ``$962,000 shall be used for the continued operation of the 
     Indian Arts and Crafts Board and an amount''.
       On page 43, line 1, strike ``$58,109,000'' and insert 
     ``$57,796,000''.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment would add $313,000 to the 
budget of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board at the Department of the 
Interior, bringing the total for the Board to $962,000 for the upcoming 
fiscal year. The funding would be offset by an equal reduction in the 
departmental management account.
  My amendment will ensure that a small, but important arts agency, the 


[[Page S12021]]
Indian Arts and Crafts Board, can continue its operations. I want to 
make it clear to my colleagues, however, that even if the amendment is 
adopted, the Arts and Crafts Board will take a 10-percent cut from the 
current year level--a 20-percent cut from the President's budget 
request.
  The work of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board is about creating 
opportunities for native American artisans, particularly young people 
who must decide whether to continue the historical and cultural 
traditions that are entailed in Indian art and craftmaking.
  The Board helps to foster such opportunities for native American 
artisans, providing business advice and technical assistance to Indian 
individuals and organizations; helping to identify new markets for 
Indian craft businesses; and promoting Indian art in Board museums as 
well as outside exhibitions.
  The most important function of the Board relates to implementation of 
the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which directs the Board to 
assist native American artisans, tribes, or marketing organizations in 
obtaining trademarks for their products. Such marks of genuineness--
trademarks--help develop markets for Indian products, as well as assure 
consumers that the products they buy are indeed genuine Indian. The act 
also establishes stiff penalties for misrepresentation of works as 
Indian produced when they are not. The 1990 act represents a free 
market approach to promoting economic development in Indian country.
  In a nutshell, the 1990 act gives the Board authority to obtain 
trademarks for Indian artisans and thus help them distinguish their 
works in the marketplace. This also helps consumers determine 
genuineness. It strengthens criminal penalties for violations--
counterfeiting of trademarks--and establishes new civil remedies 
against those who misrepresent works as Indian produced when they are 
not. In short, it cracks down on the fraud which is siphoning off a 
significant share of the market for native American artisans.
  Prior to passage of the 1990 act, the Commerce Department had 
estimated that imported imitation Indian handcrafts were siphoning off 
10 to 20 percent from genuine Indian artisans' markets. Commerce also 
found that much of the counterfeit market was made up of jewelry that 
undersold the genuine articles made by craftsmen such as the Navajo, 
Hopi, and Zuni, by as much as 50 percent.
  That is significant because, if Indian artisans cannot make enough 
money due to competition from cheap fakes, they will abandon the arts, 
and rich native American traditions will die out as a result. Or, if 
they have to increase productivity at the expense of time-honored 
manufacturing techniques in order to compete with imitation products, 
an important part of their heritage will be compromised and lost.
  Mr. President, for many Native Americans, their art is their sole 
source of income. These are not wealthy people. I met with one Navajo 
couple, for example, whose ability to produce more Navajo rugs was 
limited by their inability to raise more sheep. These people are 
struggling from day to day to make ends meet.
  I am not asking in our amendment that Indian artisans get special 
treatment. We're proposing a funding level that represents a 10-percent 
cut from the fiscal year 1995 level. What I am asking is that the 
Indian Arts and Crafts Board be allowed to continue its work 
promulgating the regulations to implement and enforce the 1990 act; to 
continue its work on behalf of native American artisans.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
                           amendment no. 2315

     (Purpose: To provide that any new fossil energy research and 
 development project start shall be cost-shared with a private entity)

       On page 77, line 12, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That any new project start 
     funded under this heading shall be substantially cost-shared 
     with a private entity to the extent determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary of Energy''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would require that any new 
starts in the area of coal, gas, or oil research and development be 
cost shared with private industry.
  Mr. President, at a time that we are cutting spending in programs 
across the board in order to gain control over the Federal budget, we 
must look very critically at those activities undertaken by the Federal 
Government which could and should be funded by private industry.
  In fact, I believe we should not engage in any new starts and that we 
should consider very seriously turning over research and development 
activities intended to benefit particular industries, to those 
industries. Until that decision has been made, however, we should at 
the very least require private industry to put up a substantial cost 
share for any new research activities undertaken by the Department of 
Energy.
  I trust that my colleagues will agree and that this amendment can be 
accepted.


                           amendment no. 2316

 (Purpose: To transfer certain funds from land acquisition to national 
                      recreation and preservation)

       On page 18, line 17, strike ``$38,051,000'' and insert 
     ``38,094,000.''
       On page 19, line 26, strike ``$43,230,000'' and insert 
     ``$43,187,000.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2317

        (Purpose: To protect citizens' private property rights)

       On page 16, line 17, strike the word ``surveys'' and insert 
     the following: ``surveys, including new aerial surveys.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2318

(Purpose: To provide funds for the acquisition of subsurface rights in 
                     the Kane Experimental Forest)

       On page 69, line 11, after ``expended'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That of the amounts made available 
     for acquisition management, $1,000,000 may be made available 
     for the purchase of subsurface rights in the Kane 
     Experimental Forest''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my amendment would provide $1 million to 
the Forest Service for the acquisition of subsurface oil and gas rights 
beneath the Kane Experimental Forest to protect the vital research and 
experimentation programs in the forest. I am advised that if these 
subsurface rights are not purchased this year, the landowner is likely 
to allow the commencement of exploration for oil and gas under the 
forest.
  Located on the eastern boundary of the Allegheny National Forest, the 
1,737-acre Kane Experimental Forest is the field headquarters of the 
Allegheny Plateau Research Center of the U.S. Forest Service's 
Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. This research station has 
been a leader in the development of Allegheny hardwood management 
techniques since the 1930's. Over the years, the Forest Service has 
pursued an acquisition program of subsurface rights where important 
research would be adversely impacted by further oil and gas 
exploration. This program of acquisition has now moved to the Kane 
Experimental Forest, where new extraction activities are planned, some 
of which would likely eviscerate the vital research and experimental 
programs of the forest.
  The Forest Service has requested a $1 million appropriation for 
fiscal year 1996 to allow the agency to purchase the subsurface oil and 
gas rights beneath the Kane Experimental Forest. These funds would 
allow the consolidation of surface and subsurface rights throughout the 
forest to continue while protecting invaluable forest research and 
data. This would also reduce the management costs that the Forest 
Service currently incurs by having to monitor the extraction activities 
in the Kane Forest.
  Mr. President, I would note that my amendment makes these funds 
available for the purchase of these subsurface rights, but leaves the 
decision to the discretion of the Forest Service.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment and yield the floor.
                           amendment no. 2319

  (Purpose: To provide that $275,000 shall be made available from the 
 cash equalization account in the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 
   the acquisition of Mt. Jumbo in the Lolo National Forest, Montana)

       On page 69, line 11, insert ``, of which $275,000 may be 
     made available from the cash equalization account for the 
     acquisition of Mt. Jumbo in the Lolo Natonal Forest, 
     Montana'' before the period.
                                                                    ____

                                  
[[Page S12022]]



                           amendment no. 2320

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the National Park Service 
                       land acquisition program)

       On page 19, line 26, strike ``$43,230,000'' and insert 
     ``$45,230,000.
       On page 2, line 11, strike ``$565,936,000'' and insert 
     ``$563,936,000.
       On page 3, line 5, strike ``$565,936,000'' and insert 
     ``$563,936,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to provide $2 
million to continue the acquisition of land at the Petroglyphs National 
Monument in Albuquerque, NM.
  I offer this amendment today because these ancient Indian rock 
carvings continue to be directly threatened by development and urban 
encroachment.
  The distinguished chairman and ranking member have done their best to 
address land acquisition requirements. The subcommittee has focused its 
efforts on acquisitions wherein funding will complete the Federal 
Government's obligation for land purchase.
  While the $2 million in this amendment will not complete acquisition 
at the Petroglyphs National Monument, it will ensure that we continue 
our commitment to the landowners within the boundaries of the monument.
  Many of these landowners have announced their intention to develop 
their property if no funding is made available to purchase their 
property next year. Several landowners have begun breaking ground on 
their property.
  These landowners have worked in good faith with the city of 
Albuquerque, the National Park Service, and the Congress during the 
establishment of this monument, expecting to be compensated within a 
reasonable time.
  Mr. President, the Petroglyphs National Monument stretches for more 
than 17 miles across Albuquerque's west side. Only 800 acres remain to 
be purchased within the boundaries of the monument. This $2 million 
will purchase property in the southern portion of the monument, most of 
which belongs to Westland Development.
  Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the overall bill remains within the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, I am fully offsetting this amendment 
by reducing by $2 million the Bureau of Land Management automated land 
and minerals records system. This fully offsets the outlays needed for 
the amendment.
                           amendment no. 2321

   (Purpose: To direct the National Park Service to conduct, within 
    existing funds, a Feasibility Study to evaluate proposals for a 
     northern access route into Denali National Park and Preserve)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     section:
       Sec.   . The National Park Service shall, within existing 
     funds, conduct a Feasibility Study for a northern access 
     route into Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska, to be 
     completed within one year of the enactment of this Act and 
     submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources and the House Committee on Resources. The 
     Feasibility Study shall ensure that resource impacts from any 
     plan to create such access route are evaluated with accurate 
     information and according to a process that takes into 
     consideration park values, visitor needs, a full range of 
     alternatives, the viewpoints of all interested parties, 
     including the tourism industry and the State of Alaska, and 
     potential needs for compliance with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act. The Study shall also address the 
     time required for development of alternatives and identify 
     all associated costs.
       The Feasibility Study shall be conducted solely by National 
     Park Service planning personnel permanently assigned to 
     National Park Service offices located in the State of Alaska 
     in consultation with the State of Alaska Department of 
     Transportation.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Denali National Park and Preserve is 
one of the Nation's most magnificent of natural resources. The park 
exemplifies Alaska's character as one of the world's last great 
frontiers for adventure. Every year, the park instills awe into the 
thousands of visitors who are lucky enough to see it.
  Unfortunately, few ever have the opportunity to enter the park. The 
1994 visitor season brought 490,149 visitors to the entrance of the 
park, only 241,995 of which were allowed to proceed past the entrance 
check point. The other 249,154 visitors were turned away. In other 
words Mr. President, 51 percent of the visitors intending to visit 
Denali National Park were not allowed to set foot in the grandeur of 
this 6 million acre park.
  To some, 6 million acres may not sound like a significant piece of 
real estate, but once you realize that the park is equivalent in size 
of the State of Maryland, and that within this vast area there is only 
one 90-mile gravel road to accommodate a very limited number of park 
visitors, you can begin to realize some of my frustration with the 
management practices of the National Park Service.
  The National Park Service sees nothing wrong with operating a park 
the size of the State of Maryland in a way that keeps the majority of 
visitors out of ``their'' park. Those fortunate enough to get past the 
entrance check point, complete with an armed guard, who I 
affectionately refer to as ``check point Charley,'' the average park 
visitor is then confined to the narrow corridor of one gravel roadway, 
the length of which is less than a round trip from Washington to 
Baltimore.
  I find this whole concept to be a fraud on the park visitor. The 
visitor in this case is bused 90 miles down a dusty road and then 
afforded the opportunity to return to ``check point Charley'' by 
exactly the same route. Thankfully, the NPS does not charge extra for 
this double look at the resource.
  From a park management standpoint it makes little sense to crowd 
every visitor onto one length of existing roadway in a 6-million-acre 
park. The Park Service is now complaining that visitors are causing 
some compaction of soils along the side of the existing corridor. Now 
that is what I call a scientific discovery. It proves that there is 
some intelligent life within the Service. Someone has actually noticed 
that if you confine most of your visitors to a single pathway, 
eventually some soil compaction will take place. Mr. President, great 
strides are being taken here. Unfortunately, we are going the wrong 
way.
  There is little movement to accommodate the increasing number of park 
visitors, only warnings that increased visitation will damage every 
singe acre of the 6-million-acre park.
  Mr. President, from the very beginning, the national park equation 
included the accommodation of visitors. It is apparent that visitors 
are becoming less important in the park management scheme. It is high 
time that we balance the national park equation again by reestablishing 
visitors as important and desirable components of the system.
  Mr. President, my amendment will assist the National Park Service in 
fulfilling their mandate: it will encourage the accommodation of park 
visitors. When enacted, my amendment would direct the Service to 
accomplish a feasibility study on a second access road into Denali 
National Park using a northern route which would carefully avoid any 
designated wilderness and would have little impact on the environment.
  Mr. President, in all fairness, the National Park Service is looking 
at a southern location from which visitors will at least be able to see 
the mountain. The proposal calls for a visitors' site to be located on 
adjacent State land. But you may be certain that the road will stop at 
the park boundary. God forbid that anyone would let additional park 
visitors actually visit a park.
  The visitor needs access, moreover, the visitors want access. Mr. 
President, imagine how disappointed you and your family would be, if 
after you had traveled thousands of miles to see the great vistas of 
Denali and Mount McKinley, ``check point Charley'' told you there was 
no room in the 6-million-acre park. I doubt that you would be 
overjoyed. Last year it happened to 51 percent of the visitors.
  Mr. President, it is far more intelligent to provide additional 
access by a well planned alternative route than to continue turning 
away thousands of visitors and managing the rest in a way that results 
in damage to Denali's resources.
  This amendment does not construct a highway, it only studies an 
alternative solution to accommodate park visitors. My amendment would 
require the National Park Service to complete a feasibility study, 
within available park funds.
  The study would evaluate current proposals for a northern access 
route. It would ensure that the resource impacts from any plan to 
create a new access route are evaluated with accurate information and 
in a process that considers park values, visitor needs, a full 

[[Page S12023]]
range of alternatives, the viewpoints of all interested parties, 
including the tourist industry and the State of Alaska, and potential 
needs for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
  The study would also address the time required for development and 
all associated costs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
                           amendment no. 2322

(Purpose: Within existing park funds to provide design and construction 
drawings for the replacement of buildings accidentally destroyed by the 
             National Park Service, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     section:
       Sec.   . Consistent with existing law and policy, the 
     National Park Service shall, within the funds provided by 
     this Act, at the request of the University of Alaska 
     Fairbanks, enter into negotiations regarding a memorandum of 
     understanding for the continued use of the Stampede Creek 
     Mine property consistent with the length and terms of prior 
     memoranda of understanding between the National Park Service 
     and the University of Alaska Fairbanks: Provided, That within 
     the funds provided, the National Park Service shall undertake 
     an assessment of damage and provide the appropriate 
     committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, no 
     later than May 1, 1996, cost estimates for the reconstruction 
     of those facilities and equipment which were damaged or 
     destroyed as a result of the incident that occurred on April 
     30, 1987 at Stampede Creek within the boundaries of Denali 
     National Park and Preserve: Provided further, That the 
     National Park Service shall work with the University of 
     Alaska Fairbanks to winterize equipment and materials, 
     located on the Stampede Creek mine property in Denali 
     National Park, exposed to the environment as a result of the 
     April 30, 1987 incident.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 1987 an explosion rocked a mine in a 
remote region of Denali National Park and Preserve.
  Newspaper reports were sketchy; few individuals could have read 
between the lines to realize that a man's life work was involved, that 
the U.S. Army, the University of Alaska, and the National Park Service 
were interested parties, and that no one was willing to accept blame.
  Mr. President, the very short version of this story is that the 
National Park Service illegally took private property, and blew it up 
and in the process violated a number of environmental laws as well as 
the provisions of the Historic Preservation Act.
  The Stampede Creek mine is 115 air miles southwest of Fairbanks, 
located in the Kantishna Hills region of Denali National Park and 
Preserve.
  As early as 1915, the site was mined for antimony, a high-priced 
metal used for alloys and medicine. In 1942, Earl R. Pilgrim purchased 
the claims and under his hands-on direction the mine continued to 
operate and ship antimony until 1972. At one time, the mine was the 
second largest producer of antimony in the United States.
  Located in an isolated section of the park preserve, The Stampede 
mine was found to be eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places on June 20, 1989. Today the mine site contains, or 
excuse me, did contain several historic structures. The site is rich in 
equipment, machinery, tools, and the myriad objects that make up the 
stuff of a mining camp. Many of these items are unique to Pilgrim's 
operation and reflect his own inventiveness and mechanical skills.
  In 1979, Stampede Mines LTD. entered into negotiations with the 
National Park Service and the University of Alaska. As a result of 
those negotiations the mining company made a donation to the National 
Park Service of the surface rights including road access from the 
airstrip, the historic buildings, water rights, and stream banks.
  It was thought at the time that the National Park Service possessed 
the wherewithal to better maintain and protect the valuable historic 
structures. Unfortunately, history would record that there was little 
merit to this line of thinking.
  At the same time, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of 
Mineral Engineering was donated all the mineral rights, mining 
equipment and fixtures with mineral development restrictions for the 
education of students.
  Mr. President, the mineral development restrictions included 
provisions which allowed for only educational use of the mineral 
estate. No commercial mining would be allowed, only small-scale 
educational mining, and even though the buildings, roads, trails, and 
air strip were owned by the Park Service, the university would be 
responsible for maintaining them.
  The school of Mineral Engineering was most pleased with the 
arrangement and looked forward to providing their mining students a 
unique opportunity to learn first hand about past and present day 
mining operations and equipment. Given the chance, they would like the 
opportunity to conduct such an educational program in the future.
  The educational program is consistent with the intent of the 
university's receipt of the property. The School of Mineral Engineering 
has developed a meaningful program that provides instruction-
investigation about environmentally sound mineral exploration and 
mining techniques in a sensitive natural environment--as well as 
studying the geology, biology, and ecology of the area, and studying 
the historical aspects of Mr. Pilgrim's mine.
  The program has already helped the mineral industry develop methods 
to explore for and develop minerals on lands located in sensitive areas 
throughout Alaska, even on land controlled by the Department of the 
Interior.
  Mr. President, it was to be an absolute win for the National Park 
Service and a win in the field of education for the university. No one 
in their worst nightmares, would have believed that the National Park 
Service could blow this opportunity.
  During 1986 to 1987 National Park Service personnel conducted field 
inspections of old mining sites located on their lands for the purposes 
of identifying potentially contaminated sites and hazardous conditions.
  Toward the end of July 1986, the Stampede Creek site was examined. 
The inspectors recommended immediate action to examine the safety of 
old blasting caps and chemicals at the site. Before taking any action, 
the inspectors recommended that the ownership issue be resolved. In 
other words, someone actually considered private property. The matter 
was treated as serious, but not as an emergency or life-threatening 
situation. Nothing further occurred for 8 months.
  Subsequently, National Park Service personnel and members of the U.S. 
Army's Explosive Ordinance Detonation Team arrived, unannounced, at the 
Stampede Mine site and on April 30, 1987 changed the configuration of 
the mine site and its historic structures.
  Mr. President, they moved 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate--private 
property of the University--and placed it on top of the still frozen 
Stampede Creek. Ammonium nitrate may sound dangerous but in its 
packaged state it is nothing more than common fertilizer.
  They piled 4,000 pounds of fertilizer on top of the creek and added 
several half gallon bottles of acid--more private property which they 
retrieved from the assay lab. Finally they added 45 points of high 
explosives--set the charge and left the area.
  When the smoke cleared and all of the debris fell back to Earth, they 
found the explosion left a crater 28 feet wide and 8 feet deep in the 
creek. There was also a noticeable change in the mining site.
  Mr. President, this is a picture of the Stampede Mine site prior to 
the arrival of the National Park Service. This is a picture of the mill 
upon their return to see if they had gotten rid of the fertilizer and 
chemicals.
  In addition to the mine entrance and mill, damage occurred to other 
buildings, trees, landscape, and stream bed. The bombing also blew up a 
5,000 ton tailings pile which, by using USGS records for the current 
price of metals, would be worth approximately $600,000 in place. 
Unfortunately the heavy metals of the tailings pile were last seen 
moving from the site and being scattered throughout the environment by 
the force of the blast.
  One of the most telling reports concerning this debacle is from the 
U.S. Army incident report No. 176-23-87 which stated that the NPS 
personnel were aware that detonation would result in damage to the 
surrounding buildings and according to Sergeant Seutter ``at no time 
was it relayed to me that damage--was unacceptable.''
  Mr. President, violations of the law are clear. There are violations 
of the 

[[Page S12024]]
Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act involving wetlands, not to mention the taking and 
destruction of private property.
  Further, since the explosion, approximately $2 million worth of 
mining equipment--some historic--has been damaged or destroyed due to 
exposure to inclement weather and the normal Alaska freeze and thaw 
cycles.
  What I find equally outrageous is the fact that no one from the 
National Park Service has said ``I am sorry.''
  Mr. President, my amendment does not attempt to rectify all the wrong 
that has been done. My amendment would direct the Park Service to issue 
a 10 year special use permit to the University of Alaska so that they 
may continue their worthwhile education program with some assurance of 
program continuity and to insure that the $20,000 they have invested 
and other monies they continue to invest will not be lost or be spent 
in vain.
  My amendment also directs the Park Service, within appropriated park 
funds, to provide appropriate committees with cost estimates for the 
repair and or restoration of buildings and equipment damaged or 
destroyed by the National Park Service in this unfortunate incident, 
and to provide temporary shelter on site for any equipment and 
materials now exposed to the weather on the site.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                           amendment no. 2323

 (Purpose: An amendment in regard to the Department of Energy Code and 
                           Standards Program)
       On page 128, strike section 320, and insert the following: 
     ``None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used 
     by the Department of Energy in implementing the Codes and 
     Standards Program to propose, issue, or prescribe any new or 
     amended standard: Provided, That this section shall expire on 
     September 30, 1996: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     shall preclude the Federal Government from promulgating rules 
     concerning energy efficiency standards for the construction 
     of new federally owned commercial and residential 
     buildings.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just a couple weeks ago on this floor, 
we had an extensive debate on the issue of regulatory reform. A lot of 
amendments were offered, a lot of work was done, and a great many 
speeches were delivered--but in the end, nothing was delivered to the 
American people.
  It became clear that the only regulatory reform that would be allowed 
to pass would be something so watered down that it was hardly worth 
passing at all. And the leadership wisely decided to pull the bill 
down.
  Because of that, however, Americans today remain vulnerable to 
overzealous, overreaching Federal regulators. Consumers, businesses, 
and volunteer organizations are the easy prey of aggressive 
bureaucrats--who take the laws that we pass and twist them into absurd, 
extreme restrictions that impact the lives of everyday Americans.
  The amendment I am offering today addresses one such instance of 
overreaching regulation. It is, if you will, a minor skirmish in the 
regulatory reform war. But in the balance are consumers' pocketbooks, 
as well as a huge number of jobs--in my State, and in many others as 
well.
  Specifically, my amendment would put a 1-year moratorium on so-called 
energy efficiency regulations that the Department of Energy is 
preparing to issue under its Codes and Standards Program.
  Now, let me make it very clear that my amendment is not hostile to 
the laudable goal of energy efficiency. Nor is it intended to shut down 
the regulatory process under DOE's Codes and Standards Program. No one 
disputes the fact the energy efficiency is important; or that DOE has 
played a key role in encouraging companies and products to be more 
energy efficient.
  Nevertheless, as has happened all too often in the regulatory arena, 
DOE is on the brink of adopting new rules that would have tremendously 
adverse consequences on consumers and workers alike.
  My amendment does not repeal the proposed regulations. Nor does it 
affect the enforcement of any existing energy efficiency regulations. 
What it does is impose a 1-year moratorium on the DOE ability to 
propose, issue or prescribe any new regulations under the Codes and 
Standards Program, so that both their impact and their relative benefit 
can be better assessed.
  I want to be quite clear on this point.
  My amendment would not affect energy efficiency labeling of products. 
Consumers could continue to make well-informed choices about the 
relative energy consumption of various household appliances.
  Further, DOE could continue to test products and measure their energy 
efficiency. All my amendment does is call a timeout in the middle of a 
regulatory process that is about to become horrendously burdensome for 
thousands of workers and millions of consumers.
  If we do not pass this amendment, and the proposed DOE regulations 
are adopted, consumers will see their range of choices sharply 
limited--almost to the point of a legalized monopoly--and workers could 
see their plants shut down, almost overnight.
  I should point out that the bill before us recognizes the seriousness 
of this problem by including a moratorium on enforcement of these 
regulations--but just for one product alone: fluorescent lamp ballasts. 
I agree that these regulations pose a serious threat to fluorescent 
lamp ballasts, but the problem is clearly much broader than that.
  The new standards proposed by DOE would affect refrigerators, air-
conditioning units, water heaters, pool heaters, and mobile home 
furnaces. Other products, like freezers, washing machines, clothes 
dryers, dishwashers, and electric motors, could also be hit hard by DOE 
regulations that are now under consideration.
  Companies that make these basic household appliances are facing 
enormous costs because of the new standards. Manufacturing processes 
and product designs will have to be drastically altered. In some cases, 
entire product lines will simply be abandoned, and the employees who 
make them will be dumped out on the streets.
  Moreover, consumers who rely on these kinds of basic household 
appliances will face a drastic reduction in choice, along with steep 
increases in price, as manufacturers scramble to meet the new standards 
coming out of Washington.
  This is an all-too-common tale of regulation gone wild: overzealous 
bureaucrats, proposing pie-in-the-sky restrictions, which inflict heavy 
costs on American families who struggle to make ends meet.
  Once again, the Federal regulatory apparatus is poised to disrupt a 
broad range of industries, and pass the costs on to middle-class 
consumers.
  My amendment would give Congress the breathing room it needs to study 
the regulations, analyze their impact, and suggest alternatives that 
meet the goal of energy efficiency without threatening jobs or 
ratcheting up the price tag for basic household appliances.
  I am pleased that the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Murkowski, has endorsed in a letter the approach 
taken by my amendment. In my view, the Energy Committee is best 
equipped to review the matter and recommend changes that are needed. I 
ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski's letter on this subject 
be made part of the record.
  I would also like to point out that the House, by a vote of 261 to 
165, approved language that is virtually identical to what I am 
proposing now.
  But ultimately, what matters to me is not what the House did or 
anything else: it is what the DOE regulations will do to thousands of 
employees in my home State, many of whom will lose their jobs at some 
point because of some bureaucratic decision made in Washington.
  For example, the General Electric plant in Louisville is the largest 
single-site employer in my State.
  I'm proud to say that the hard-working employees at the G.E. plant 
turn out some of the highest quality home appliances in the world. In 
fact, it's likely that just about everyone in this body--and most 
everyone watching C-SPAN today--has at one point or another owned a 
high quality home appliance that was made at G.E. in Louisville.
  What do these pending Federal regulations mean to the workers at the 
G.E. plant?
  The new energy efficiency standards--just for refrigerators--will 
cost 

[[Page S12025]]
the company $187 million, and that's only in the short term.
  Possible new standards for clothes washers could force G.E. to shut 
down a brandnew $100 million facility, and hand out pink slips to up to 
2,000 employees who work there.
  Here we're trying to encourage investment and job creation--and these 
regulations could force a Kentucky plant to close down a state-of-the-
art manufacturing operation and let go of thousands of employees.
  All because some bureaucrats in Washington are designing their 
perfect world for the rest of the country to follow.
  Similar effects will be felt by other players in the home appliance 
industry, across the country. Ask the workers in your State who 
manufacture home appliances. They will tell you that these regulations 
are economic poison in their industry.
  In fact, there's only one manufacturer who supports these 
regulations; and not surprisingly, that one manufacturer is uniquely 
positioned to benefit from the regulations that this amendment seeks to 
delay.
  It so happens that this one manufacturer already holds a 50-percent 
share in the clothes washer market.
  But apparently, that is not enough. So what this one company hopes to 
do is use the Federal regulatory system to drive its competitors out of 
business.
  It conveniently turns out that this company is the only one that 
makes a certain kind of clothes washer which some Federal bureaucrat 
likes. All other companies will have to radically change the way they 
make clothes washers, just to stay in the game.
  Mr. President, Federal regulators should not be in the business of 
picking winners and losers in the clothes washer industry.
  Buyers of clothes washers should not have their purchasing decisions 
made for them by Washington bureaucrats.
  And Congress should not be sanctioning a proposed regulatory 
structure that in effect creates a legalized monopoly. Don't take my 
word for it; listen to the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust 
Enforcement, Anne Bingaman. She wrote a letter to DOE concerning the 
anticompetitive effect these regulations would be likely to have on the 
marketplace.
  In her letter, dated September 16, 1994, Ms. Bingaman said:

       For television sets, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and 
     professional style or high end kitchen ranges, it is the 
     Department's judgment based on the available evidence that 
     significant anticompetitive effects are likely to occur.

  In other words, these regulations are bad news for consumers--for 
American families.
  The letter from Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman goes on to 
warn DOE of the negative impact this rulemaking would have on market 
competition, as well as on individual product lines.
  Remarkably, DOE did nothing in response to this devastating 
assessment of its proposal.
 In fact, it was not until the House flatly suspended DOE's regulatory 
authority in this area that the agency finally acted.

  Nevertheless, DOE's response was simply to terminate its rulemaking 
on television sets--an obviously weak half measure. None of the other 
pending regulations criticized by the Assistant Attorney General were 
suspended.
  Mr. President, many appliance manufacturers are facing the second or 
third round of reregulation by DOE.
  Each of these new sets of regulations imposes additional costs, which 
are directly paid by hard-working American families.
  Sometimes, when the regulatory burden is too great, the company just 
abandons the product line altogether, and employees are sent home to 
look for other jobs.
  This is no way to regulate. We need a timeout with regard to these 
pending regulations, to give Congress the time to take a good, hard 
look at how DOE has been regulating this segment of our economy.
  As I said earlier, I have a letter from Senator Murkowski, chairman 
of the Energy Committee, requesting that his committee be given the 
opportunity to evaluate the proposed standards.
  Let's give the committee that opportunity, and try to restore some 
sanity to the regulatory process--at least in this one instance.
  In closing, I want to remind everyone that no ground whatsoever would 
be lost by adopting my amendment. It does not invalidate any current 
energy efficiency regulations; it does not turn the clock back; it only 
looks toward the future.
  The energy efficiency regulatory process has gotten off track, and it 
is time to get it back on the rails--before jobs are lost, competition 
is restricted, and basic consumer products are banned.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
amendment: Senators Ford, Harkin, Grassley, Murkowski, Lott, Hutchison, 
and Gramm.
  And I hope we can come together and at least put a 1-year moratorium 
on regulations that have gone in a terribly wrong direction.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have cosponsored the McConnell 
amendment. The amendment allows the DOE to do the planning work 
necessary to develop energy efficiency standards. But, it does not 
allow the Department to issue a rule or a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. I am a strong supporter of solid energy standards. But, I 
have become aware of some real concerns about how the Department of 
Energy is implementing the law in this area.
  The Department is supposed to consider the initial and lifetime cost 
of appliances under these standards. And, the Department is supposed to 
consider the impact of new standards on the manufacturers. But, 
apparently, while they may be looking at those questions, DOE is not 
giving them the weight that I believe they should be given.
  When we look at a family with $25,000 or $35,000 a year, the cost of 
an extra $200 for an appliance is significant. For someone who needs a 
new furnace in an old home, if only very high-efficiency furnaces are 
available, we need to not only look at the cost of the furnace, one 
also needs to consider the retrofitting costs for the flue that can be 
very considerable.
  I am also concerned about a reduction in the number of companies 
making various types of appliances. As the cost of adjusting 
manufacturing plants costs to meet higher energy standards rises, the 
number of models of appliances may be reduced. That reduces competition 
and costs existing jobs. But, those costs can be mitigated. There are 
numerous ways that stronger energy standards can be promulgated in ways 
that will limit the cost of facility modifications and the effective 
obsolescence of existing facilities. Unfortunately, the models that the 
Department uses to attempt to figure out the impact of the effects of 
their rules on manufacturers, looks at an average manufacturer. Their
 analysis of the average company may be correct. But, smaller companies 
can and are very adversely impacted.

  My State of Iowa has a number of quality appliance manufacturers who 
are relatively small compared to those that have the largest market 
share for specific appliances. They provide quality products and 
alternatives to consumers. They are the major employers in their 
communities where they are very good corporate citizens providing 
quality jobs.
  And, many of them are noted for being leaders in energy-efficiency-
offering appliances that are well ahead of what the energy-efficiency 
rules require. In spite of their leadership, they could be very 
adversely impacted if their concerns are not considered by new energy 
rules under consideration.
  Originally, there was a legislative proposal to completely stop work 
toward improved standards. And, the House did agree with an amendment 
of that type. I had real concerns about that. The revised version of 
the amendment does allow DOE to do considerable work toward the 
development of new energy standards. That change allows them to proceed 
after the coming fiscal year with less than a year's lost time. And, I 
am hopeful that adjustments will be made that will allow us to proceed 
without further delay.
  I hope that my concerns can be addressed during the coming fiscal 
year through improvements in the authorizing law or through improved 
procedures at the Department.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor and support 
the McConnell amendment. This amendment establishes a 1-year moratorium 


[[Page S12026]]
on new standard-setting rulemakings by the Department of Energy.
  This amendment is necessary to maintain the competitive nature of the 
U.S. appliance industry, which includes home appliances as well as 
heating and air-conditioning equipment.
  New energy standards would threaten the viability of several U.S. 
manufacturers of appliances, including at least four in my State.
  A 1-year moratorium will allow the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee to review DOE's energy-efficiency standards program to 
determine what impacts these standards are having on competition, and 
on the consumers of these products.
  Senator Murkowski, the distinguished chairman of the Energy 
Committee, has already indicated his support for the moratorium and his 
willingness to conduct such a review.
  Mr. President, I will just take a moment to highlight a few of the 
effects that new standard requirements will have on both the industry 
and the American consumer.
  Energy standards currently exist for all major appliances. For 
example, manufacturers must meet these standards on such products as 
dishwashers, refrigerators, laundry machines, and heating and air-
conditioning units.
  The Department of Energy reviews the standards periodically and most 
products are already being considered for their second set of standards 
since 1990; some face their third set of standards during this period.
  So these products already operate at a very high level of efficiency. 
If the DOE continues to increase these standards, many companies will 
be crippled by the burden of the capital investment necessary to meet 
additional standards.
  Furthermore, these companies will be unable to invest in other 
product innovations which are absolutely vital for maintaining their 
competitiveness, both in the United States and in the global 
marketplace.
  If further capital investment is required, it is likely that most of 
the cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices 
for appliances.
  Furthermore, companies will be forced to discontinue certain models 
and brands because they are no longer cost-effective to produce. So 
consumers will have fewer products to choose from and the products that 
are available will cost more.
  We need to call a time out, take a step back, and consider whether 
all of this is necessary. This amendment allows Congress the 
opportunity to do just that.
  Mr. President, it is also important to note exactly what this 
amendment will not do. This amendment will not affect existing energy 
standards in any way. This amendment will not alter the existing energy 
labeling program, which enables consumers to compare competing brands 
of appliances. And this amendment will not undermine the energy savings 
already achieved in these products.
  Finally, Mr. President, this amendment protects the consumer's 
ability to purchase energy-efficient appliances at a competitive price.
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
                           amendment no. 2324

(Purpose: To provide funding for cooperative lands fire management and 
  to increase funding for the stewardship incentive program, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 66, lines 3 and 4, strike ``$128,294,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by law'' and insert 
     ``$136,794,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by law, of which not less than $16,100,000 shall 
     be made available for cooperative lands fire management and 
     not less than $7,500,000 shall be made available for the 
     stewardship incentive program''.
       On page 66, line 15, strike ``$1,256,043,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,247,543,000''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I would like to 
introduce for myself and Senators Burns, Craig, Jeffords, Murray, 
Lautenberg, Bond, McConnell, Lieberman, Snowe, and Cohen. It has the 
support of many Senators from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed by the move to eliminate one of the 
few financial incentives we have to help private landowners do the 
right thing for conservation--the Stewardship Incentives Program.
  The Stewardship Incentives Program was created in the 1990 farm bill 
with broad bipartisan support to help forest owners improve wildlife 
habitat, protect water quality, improve forest management, and develop 
recreation opportunities.
  Every Endangered Species Reform Act being considered by this Congress 
includes language to establish a program like the Stewardship 
Incentives Program. We need to put our money where our mouth is. If we 
are serious about moving from a regulatory conservation approach to a 
voluntary approach, we have to fund the voluntary programs we have on 
the books.
  We know that landowners cannot always pay their property taxes by 
managing their land specially for wildlife and water quality. The 
Stewardship Incentives Program helps private landowners do the right 
thing with a nonregulatory, cost-incentive, State-grant program.
  The amendment also includes funding for volunteer fire departments 
which are essential organizations to rural communities throughout the 
country. These organizations are often the first to respond to common 
kitchen fires and dangerous forest fires.
  This amendment is supported by the National Association of State 
Foresters, the Izaak Walton League, the National Association of 
Conservation Districts, The Nature Conservancy, the Northern Forest 
Alliance, the American Forest & Paper Association, the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Volunteer Fire 
Council, and many others.
  Mr. President, this amendment has broad support on both sides of the 
aisle and broad support across the entire natural resource community. 
My staff has worked with the committee staff and the Forest Service to 
identify offsets. I hope the Senate can accept this amendment 
expeditiously given its broad base of support.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Vermont. The amendment restores 
funding for the Forestry Stewardship Incentives Program [SIP]. 
Landowners who sign up for the Forest Stewardship Program are often new 
to the practice of forest management, the cost-share components assists 
them in making land more productive more rapidly.
  The SIP was designed to assist nonindustrial private landowners in 
implementing good management practices. Recent surveys indicate over 9 
million private nonindustrial landowners; by contrast, the Nation has 
only over 2 million farmers. In Kentucky, we have over 300,000 private 
landowners who have over 10.9 million acres of forest land to manage.
  This amendment preserves one of the only nonregulatory Federal 
programs in existence for nonindustrial private forest landowners.
  The Kentucky Stewardship Incentive Program is a very successful 
program. It is a cooperative effort of Kentucky's environmental 
community. The cost share assistance helps private landowners in 
implementing a forest stewardship plan on rural land with existing tree 
cover and other lands including cropland, pasture land, surface mined 
land.
  The Kentucky Stewardship Incentive Program:
  Encourages private forest landowners to manage their forest lands for 
economic, environmental, and social benefits;
  Complements and expands other forestry assistance programs;
  Gives priority to tree planting, tree maintenance, and tree 
improvement practices;
  Increases the quality and quantity of Kentucky's timber resources, 
and
  Maintains and improves the habitat for a diverse mixture of native 
wildlife.
  This is an extremely beneficial program that helps private forest 
landowners provide better land management and improve our natural 
resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (No. 2311 through 2324) were agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. President, a few more are in the process of being cleared. 

[[Page S12027]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum until they are ready.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


      Vitiation of Action on Amendments Nos. 2318, 2319, and 2320

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I made a mistake on three of the 
amendments I just had agreed to that do not at this point have 
unanimous consent to adopt.
  I ask unanimous consent that action on the amendments proposed by 
Senators Baucus, Domenici, and Specter be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2325

 (Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which 
                funds are made available under this Act)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to ask unanimous consent 
to set aside pending amendments?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2325.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--The head of each 
     agency for which funds are made available under this Act 
     shall take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency.
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the head 
     of each agency described in subsection (a) shall submit a 
     report to Congress specifying the results of the actions 
     taken under subsection (a) and providing any recommendations 
     concerning how to further reduce energy costs and energy 
     consumption in the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved; and
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is the last agreed-upon amendment. It 
is on behalf of Senator Bingaman and deals with energy conservation in 
Federal facilities. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2325) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


              Amendments Nos. 2318, 2319, and 2320 En Bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe we are now ready to deal with 
the three amendments that were withdrawn a few moments ago. In doing 
so, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns be considered a prime 
cosponsor of the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that the three amendments, Specter, 
Baucus, Burns, and Domenici, be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2318, 2319, and 2320) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have a number of other colloquies but 
they are not ready yet. When they are, they will, I believe, be the 
last matters of business before final passage.
  Awaiting their OK, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  I am concerned about the funding provided for Indian programs and 
have offered an amendment to restore $200 million for important Indian 
programs.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $12 billion in new budget authority 
[BA] and $8.2 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the 
Department of Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Energy 
fossil energy and energy conservation programs, and programs related to 
the arts and museum services.
  All the funding in this bill is nondefense spending. This 
subcommittee received no allocation under the crime reduction trust 
fund.
  When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $12.2 billion in BA 
and $13.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The subcommittee is essentially at its 602(b) allocation in BA and 
$6.5 million below in outlays.
  The Senate-reported bill is $1.8 billion in BA and $1 billion in 
outlays below the President's budget request for these programs.
  It is $68.5 million in BA above the House-passed bill, and $2.2 
million in outlays below the House-passed bill. The Senate bill is $1.9 
billion in BA and $0.8 billion in outlays below the 1995 level.
  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 the bill within its allocation.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent the 1996 spending totals be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       INTERIOR SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL      
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................        146      5,001
  H.R. 1977, as reported to the Senate............     11,977      8,166
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary.............     12,123     13,168
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........         24
  H.R. 1977, as reported to the Senate............         59         25
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions..................          6          6
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal mandatory............................         65         55
                                                   =====================
    Adjusted bill total...........................     12,188     13,223
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........

[[Page S12028]]
                                                                        
  Nondefense discretionary........................     12,123     13,174
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................         65         55
                                                   ---------------------
    Total allocation..............................     12,188     13,229
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total completed to Senate                                 
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................         -0         -6
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Total allocation..............................         -0         -6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                


                         fossil energy research

  Mr. BYRD. As the Senator from Washington is aware, the committee has 
recommended $21,953,000 for advanced research and technology 
development from the Department of Energy fossil energy research and 
development account.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. As the Senator may know, there is an existing university-
industry consortium, known as the Carbon Products Consortium, 
conducting ongoing efforts in these areas. Through these efforts, this 
consortium has developed an extensive foundation of background 
knowledge in these technologies. This consortium concentrates on the 
non-fuel uses of coal to produce coal-derived carbon materials. The 
early success of this consortium is encouraging, and the dollar-for-
dollar cost sharing by the industrial partners shows their commitment 
to this work, and it is important that we continue developing these 
new, environmentally benign technologies from non-petroleum feedstocks.
  Does the Senator agree that funding for the ongoing efforts of this 
consortium, due to its knowledge and experience in these matters, 
should be given priority consideration for a portion of this funding?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, I agree that the Carbon Products Consortium should 
be given priority consideration for funding from this account.
     fossil energy research
  Mr. SIMPSON. I note that Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd are on the 
floor. I would like to ask them a question about fossil energy research 
and development. It is my understanding that, within this account, the 
Senators have agreed to shift $1,405,000 from fossil energy 
environmental restoration into cooperative research and development. Is 
is correct to say that the chairman has agreed to his shift in funding?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator's understanding is correct. The majority has 
agreed to this adjustment. Let me clarify that this does not increase 
the bill's overall appropriation, nor does it increase the 
appropriation for fossil energy research and development. It is merely 
a shift of funds from one account to another.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would also like to indicate to the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee my interest in this issue. I am pleased to 
hear of the chairman's intention. Would the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Byrd, tell us whether he agrees with Senator 
Gorton on this issue?
  Mr. BYRD. I do agree with the chairman of the subcommittee. This will 
allow the cooperative research and development program to continue at 
its present level of funding. This increase is to be divided equally 
between WRI and UNDEERC.
  Mr. DORGAN. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, I believe the work carried out under the cooperative 
research and development program is extremely important and is 
essential to meeting our country's energy needs. I am pleased with this 
shift in funding.
     oil technology research
  Mr. NICKLES. I note that the full committee took action on the 
Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, 
fiscal year 1996 which reallocated funding under oil technology 
research. This reallocation significantly reduced funding for 
processing research and downstream operations, particularly impacting 
pollution prevention and environmental compliance programs. While the 
House bill cuts pollution prevention by $900,000 the Senate 
subcommittee reduction of $1.8 million was amended to a cut of $5.3 
million. Environmental compliance was also reduced from the 
subcommittee reduction of $2.18 million to the amended reduction of 
$2.67 million. The House bill cut environmental compliance by $1.3 
million.
  The Senate bill results in a negative impact on the processing 
research and downstream operations fossil energy programs, and 
represents a vast disparity between the House and Senate allocations. I 
therefore appeal to the Senator from Washington to address this 
imbalance in conference and to seek funding more closely in line with 
the House funding.
  Mr. GORTON. I recognize and appreciate the concern of the Senator 
from Oklahoma. While budget constraints necessarily entail reduced 
funding of nearly all programs, I recognize the importance of pollution 
prevention and environmental compliance, and will endeavor to address 
the Senator from Oklahoma's concerns for funding of these programs in 
the conference committee.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington.
                   midewin national tallgrass prairie

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, as we consider the fiscal year 1996 
Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, I would like to call 
attention to a very important project for my State of Illinois, the 
Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. The House provided $400,000 for the 
Forest Service to continue the development of a plan for preserving and 
managing the former Joliet Arsenal property in Illinois as a potential 
national tallgrass prairie. These funds were not included by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, and I would like to take a moment to share 
with my colleagues the reasons why this project should receive funding.
  Earlier this year, my distinguished senior colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Simon, and I introduced S. 449, the Illinois Land Conservation 
Act. This bill transfers roughly 19,000 acres of land from the former 
Joliet Army ammunition plant to the Forest Service in order to 
establish a national grasslands. Our bill also turns over 900 acres to 
the Veterans Administration for a new national veterans cemetery, and 
converts over 3,400 acres of former munitions production areas at the 
arsenal to a variety of local purposes.
  Illinois is known as the Prairie State. This name commemorates an 
earlier Illinois, a land of rolling prairies, butterflies, wildlife, 
and pioneers seeking out new lands to settle. At one time, more than 
43,000 square miles of prairie existed in Illinois.
  Over the course of 175 years, however, development has crept over 
these open lands. Today, only 0.01 percent of original prairie is left. 
Little evidence remains of, in the words of Charles Chamberlain, the 
author of the Illinois State song, this ``Wilderness of Prairies.''
  The Illinois Land Conservation Act, once enacted, will give Illinois 
a rare opportunity to preserve one of its last remaining areas of 
natural prairie. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to set aside such a 
large, undeveloped tract of property for environmental and recreational 
purposes. In a sense, S. 449 helps to protect a slice of ecological 
history, and in doing so, creates a legacy for future generations of 
Illinoisans to study and enjoy.
  S. 449 was recently incorporated into S. 1026, the fiscal year 1996 
Defense Authorization bill, and we are hopeful that these provisions 
will be passed by Congress soon. In the meantime, we are working with 
the Forest Service to ensure that adequate funding is available to 
carry out this project.
  It is for that reason that I ask that the committee consider language 
in the conference committee report which recognizes that the 
authorization of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is nearing 
final passage by Congress, and that upon enactment, the Forest Service 
consider the need for a reprogramming request in order to proceed with 
the plan for preserving and managing the former arsenal property.
  The Illinois Land Conservation Act is based upon a plan that has been 
carefully crafted by key representatives of the local community who 
have worked closely with Federal agencies and the State of Illinois. It 
deserves to move forward quickly, and I urge favorable consideration of 
this request.

[[Page S12029]]

  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments 
regarding the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie planned for Illinois. 
I can assure the distinguished Senator that we will do all that we can 
to assist her in including her recommendation when this bill goes to 
conference.
                         national trails system

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in previous years, the report accompanying 
the Interior appropriations bill has stressed the importance of funding 
for the National Trails System within the National Park Service budget. 
Although no such language is included in the fiscal year 1996 report, 
would the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee agree that the National Park Service should 
continue to place a high level of importance on funding for the 
National Trails System?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I agree. Further, I would state that it is my 
intention, as a manager of this fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations bill, that the National Park Service should seek to fund 
the National Trails System as close as possible to the fiscal year 1995 
levels, given the budget constraints facing the committee in fiscal 
year 1996. I would also ask my colleague from Washington, Senator 
Gorton, the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee, if he 
agrees with this statement.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, I concur, and thank the Senators for pointing out 
the importance of providing adequate funding for the National Trails 
System.


                       inpatient health facility

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman for assistance in dealing with an issue that is very important 
to me and to the Indian people in my State of Nebraska. The Indian 
Health Service has determined that there is a need for an inpatient 
health facility to serve the Indian people in eastern Nebraska. The 
existing facility at the Winnebago Reservation is old, dilapidated, and 
needs to be replaced. The tribes in the area have worked with the IHS 
for 8 years to reach the point where we are now. The 103d Congress 
appropriated funds for planning and design of the new hospital and that 
process is fully underway. A site has been selected for the new 
facility with the agreement of the tribes and the IHS has begun the 
design phase. Unfortunately, the Omaha Tribe broke off negotiations 
with the Winnebago Tribe on matters related to the future construction 
and management of the hospital; the reasons for this action are not 
entirely clear. While this division occurred early in July, efforts are 
underway to bring closure to whatever differences remain. In the 
meantime, unfortunately, language was included in the report on H.R. 
1977 that would direct the reprogramming by IHS of the current year 
funds for the hospital, about $1.6 million. I believe this action is 
premature and respectfully ask the chairman to consider eliminating the 
reprogramming in conference with the House.
  Mr. GORTON. I understand the Senator's concern and agree to consider 
deletion of the language in conference. In the meantime, I hope the 
Senator will continue to work with the IHS and the tribes to move 
forward on this project. Facility construction dollars are extremely 
scarce in the current fiscal climate and there are many worthy projects 
awaiting funding that have the unqualified support of local tribes. 
With this in mind, I will be happy to revisit this issue in conference.
  Mr. KERREY. The procedure that my colleague has outlined is 
acceptable and I thank him for his courtesy in this matter.


                         doe's retrofit program

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, at this time I would like to enter into 
a colloquy with the managers of this appropriations measure regarding 
funding for the Department of Energy's retrofit program and interagency 
agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The buildings retrofit program within the Department of Energy's 
Office of Buildings Technology is currently undertaking an important 
initiative to save American taxpayers millions of dollars. The 
initiative, created 4 years ago under an agreement between the 
Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, works to reduce energy use at many of our Nation's public 
assisted housing developments. To cut off funding for this important 
program at this point would put to an end significant progress that has 
been made to date in reducing energy use in publicly funded low-income 
housing.
  Would the managers of this legislation support the following request?
  That within available funds in the Department of Energy's buildings 
programs, the Department of Energy be allowed to reprogram up to $3 
million to continue implementation of the interagency agreement with 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for public assisted 
housing and other low-income housing initiatives.
  Mr. GORTON. I would not object to this proposal.
  Mr. BYRD. I would not object to this proposal.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the managers of this legislation for their 
assistance with this important matter.
                             noxious weeds

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to discuss an issue with my 
good friend from Washington, the distinguished chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, that is of the utmost 
importance to many western public lands States.
  Last year, I raised the issue of the widespread infestation of 
noxious weeds on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
[BLM] located throughout the West and in Utah specifically. Many of 
Utah's lands were suffering from the presence of various kinds of 
noxious weeds, which is why I requested funding last year for the 
Richfield BLM District office in west central Utah to be utilized 
throughout the district to address the infestation. The total amount 
appropriated to the Richfield District was $100,000. I appreciated the 
subcommittee's recognition of this problem and its efforts to assist 
this outbreak on acreage highly visited by the public.
  This year, the story is basically the same. These lands, as well as 
other lands, are again infested with noxious weeds. They are ravaging 
lands that are critical to the agricultural industry of Utah and 
playing havoc with those who utilize BLM lands for recreational 
purposes. As anyone who represents a public lands State knows, once 
these weeds take hold of an acre of land, it is easy for them to spread 
to every acre that surrounds them, even if that surrounding land is 
private or State. Noxious weeds know no boundaries; and, therefore we 
must address them in every locale to protect the overall ecology and 
health of all lands. In my State, the Utah Department of Natural 
Resources is attempting to fight the noxious weed problem on State 
lands. So, I believe it behooves this body to provide funding to our 
various public land agencies, especially the BLM, to address this 
problem on our public lands.
  It is my understanding that this year's Interior appropriations bill 
provides funding to the BLM for this year's noxious weed problem. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. If my colleague will yield, the fiscal year 1996 
Department of the Interior appropriations bill provides $1.2 million to 
the BLM for noxious weed management. This funding is a part of the 
agency's range management account. My colleague will be pleased to know 
that the subcommittee recognizes the existing noxious weed problem 
plaguing Utah and directs $261,000 of the total account to the Utah 
State BLM Office to combat this problem. Like my colleague from Utah, I 
hope these funds will assist to properly address the noxious weed 
problem in our public lands States like Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for that clarification. I share his 
hope that we can finally gain control of our noxious weed situation, 
and I appreciate his attention to this situation in my State of Utah.
               office of surface mining and public roads

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue with the 
chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, regarding the 
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] and its regulation of public roads. I am 
especially interested in the application of these regulations in States 
like Utah that have received a delegation of primacy for implementing 
the coal regulatory program pursuant to a State program. These 
regulations have, for several years, plagued public land States like 

[[Page S12030]]
Utah that have hundreds of miles of public roads located near surface 
mining operations. I wish to engage the chairman in a brief discussion 
on this critical matter.
  Mr. GORTON. I understand this situation impacts several other Western 
States with an equivalent amount of public roads and significant 
surface mining activities.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. There has been a difference of 
opinion between OSM and the Utah State Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 
[UDOGM] as to permitting of public roads as a part of mining 
operations. OSM's regulation of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 [SMCRA] has led to differences of opinion on 
what constitutes a road and affected area, among other things, and has 
led to a number of Federal lawsuits and a series of unsuccessful 
rulemaking attempts since 1983. Clearly, there is little guidance in 
SMCRA on this issue. A literal interpretation of the act's wording 
would bring Interstate 70 and most of the State, county, and Forest 
Service roads located in central Utah under the Utah's regulatory 
program. Hopefully, no one is seriously suggesting that UDOGM, a 
division of the Utah State Department of Natural Resources, require the 
permitting of the interstate. The problem is that neither the Federal 
nor Utah regulatory programs provide any clear guidance as to where the 
jurisdictional line must be drawn.
  Although Utah's situation with regard to roads is no different from 
that of other States, this issue has been a recurring problem between 
Utah and OSM. Several meetings have been held in recent months, even 
with the Director of OSM, to address this situation. And, most 
recently, OSM agreed to a clarification of Utah's policy on road 
permitting that maintains the State's program intact, which I want to 
bring to my colleagues' attention. In regard to the Utah coal 
regulatory program, OSM has agreed that, under several basic criteria, 
the permitting of a public road would not be required. These criteria 
indicate that a public road involved in coal mining activities may not 
be required to be permitted if: First, it was properly acquired by a 
governmental entity, second, it was maintained with public funds or in 
exchange for publicly levied taxes or fees, third, it was constructed 
in a manner similar to other public roads of the same classification, 
and fourth, the impacts of mining are not significant in relation to 
other impacts on the road.
  I, for one, do not believe it was Congress' intent that OSM or States 
receiving primacy on surface mining activities would attempt to 
regulate public roads in the jurisdictional control of some 
appropriately constituted public entity. Rather, it is my belief that 
the intent of Congress was that only roads outside the jurisdiction of 
any responsible entity would be subject to jurisdiction under the 
Federal or State coal regulatory program. OSM's recent action regarding 
Utah's program is reflective of this belief, and I feel of sufficient 
importance to inform my colleagues today. I intend to support 
modifications to SMCRA that clearly spell out Congress' original intent 
with SMCRA, but I am pleased with OSM's response to UDOGM's 
clarification of Utah State law. Based on the history of OSM's position 
on road permitting vis a vis the act, it is my opinion that this 
response is significant.
  I thank my colleague for his indulgence and for his advice on this 
matter.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleague from Utah for his statement and for 
the information he has provided regarding OSM and its activities on 
road permitting. This is very useful for States with primacy in this 
area, and I am also pleased with OSM's action that suggests decisions 
on road permitting should rest in the hands of the States. I appreciate 
the Senator's efforts in this area.
      construction funding for the u.s. fish and wildlife service

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from New 
Mexico would like to clarify an issue related to construction funding 
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Domenici, Senator Byrd, and I be allowed to enter into a 
colloquy in that regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I realize that the Appropriations 
Committee has tried to include funding to complete construction and 
rehabilitate several Fish and Wildlife Service facilities. I thank the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member for recognizing the 
significant needs at the Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge in New 
Mexico. I appreciate the constraints that we have on funding of this 
nature, but I am also aware that there are ongoing construction 
projects that did not receive funding in this bill, including the 
Southwest Fisheries Technology Center, in New Mexico. The committee has 
not recommended that the Fish and Wildlife Service discontinue 
construction on these projects. It is my understanding that the 
committee intends to revisit these projects in the future, and will 
consider funding for fiscal year 1997. I ask the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee if this is correct?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. The committee 
understands the importance of these projects and intends to consider 
them again next year.
  Mr. BYRD. I join my colleague from Washington in stating that the 
committee should review these ongoing projects next year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman and ranking member for clarifying 
the intent of the committee.


                   energy information administration

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am concerned about the cuts this bill 
makes to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA maintains 
valuable and objective information on energy supply, consumption, 
production, and price. We must not lose this resource at a time when 
energy prices and supplies are so volatile and the country is becoming 
increasingly dependent on foreign oil.
  Vermont's average petroleum price is the highest in the Nation and 
EIA information helps our State plan for and respond to energy 
emergencies.
  This bill includes $63 million for EIA, a $21 million cut from last 
year. The House included $80 million for EIA. As we proceed, I hope we 
keep in mind the important role EIA serves.
                    Naval petroleum and oil reserves

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the administration's budget request 
included $101 million for the naval petroleum and oil reserves for 
fiscal year 1996. The House has proposed appropriations of $151 
million. This bill proposes appropriations of $136 million for the 
Senate.
  The administration's budget is based on a caretaker status and does 
not request funding for new initiatives. The administration's budget is 
based on the sale of the NPR No. 1, commonly referred to as the ELK 
Hills site. The budget resolution also assumes the sale of the reserve.
  I understand and agree that the oil field must be maintained and 
operated at an adequate level regardless of whether or not the reserves 
are sold. However, the Department of Energy has indicated that the 
requested fiscal year 1996 funding level combined with uncosted 
balances from prior years and expected improvements in operational 
efficiencies by DOE are sufficient to operate the site in a responsible 
manner such that the value of the field is maintained. The General 
Accounting Office has provided data showing substantial uncosted 
balances exist for this purpose.
  I am very concerned with this additional appropriation amount. I urge 
the conferees on this matter to look very closely at this and determine 
what is really needed to operate the reserve in an appropriate manner 
while preserving the value of the reserve for future sale to ensure 
that no taxpayer's dollars are wasted.


                      Montezuma Creek IHS Facility

  Mr. BENNETT. I wish to bring to the attention of the chairman a 
matter that, while it may appear small, is of great importance to the 
Utah Navajo population. The Navajo area includes 6 hospitals and 18 
outpatient facilities. Unfortunately, none of these facilities are 
currently located in Utah. In fact, the only IHS facility in the entire 
State of Utah is an outpatient facility at Fort Duchensne which is 
located over 350 miles away.
  The need for an IHS clinic located in Montezuma Creek is clearly 
justifiable. It is the population center for the eastern portion of the 
Utah Navajo. Approximately 6,000 Navajo live in southeastern Utah and 
unfortunately, their 

[[Page S12031]]
health care needs are greatly underserved. In an effort to begin the 
process of replacing the dilapidated facility, I request that $30,000 
be made available to IHS for the preliminary study and design of a 
satellite clinic located in Montezuma Creek.
  Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's interest in the design of a 
facility to replace the Montezuma Creek, UT facility and I hope to work 
with the Senator to make certain the health care needs of the Utah 
Navajo's are met. To this end, I would agree that of the $1.9 million 
included in the bill to complete partially funded health care facility 
designs, $30,000 is available to the IHS for the study and preliminary 
design of a Red Mesa facility satellite clinic to be located at 
Montezuma Creek. This study should include an assessment of whether 
such arrangement is consistent with the existing IHS health care 
facility priority list system.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman and I would urge IHS to work 
closely with the State of Utah and the Navajo Nation to utilize these 
funds in the appropriate manner this fiscal year. This is a small 
amount, but it is certainly the right first step in resolving the 
longstanding problems of adequate health care delivery in southeastern 
Utah. Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill and 
his efforts to help resolve this issue.
              the United States holocaust memorial council

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today in support of 
full funding for the United States Holocaust Memorial Council which 
funds among other things, the staffing of the Holocaust Museum. The 
funding request for fiscal year 1996 by the administration was $28.9 
million. This request was approved by the House of Representatives. The 
request is being made after a momentous year during which attendance at 
the Holocaust Museum reached a cumulative total of 3,880,517. The 
attendance totals have been an overwhelming surprise to all those 
planning for the reception of the public. In fact, Mr. President, it 
exceeds by a factor of four the anticipated attendance at the museum. 
This circumstance has stretched the capacity of the museum and its 
professional and volunteer staff to welcome the American public. This 
response to the program of the museum came with another unanticipated 
burden, that of providing a higher level of security for the public 
seeking to learn the lessons of the Holocaust.
  Mr. President, the appropriations request for fiscal year 1996 is an 
increase of $2.1 million from 1995 funding. I recognize the difficult 
choices my fellow Members are making during this process and join with 
them in making the hard choices. In this case, they have chosen to 
recommend an appropriation of $26.6 million. I urge, however, a higher 
level of funding.
  In light of the hatred and ethnic cleansing now underway in Bosnia 
and Croatia, I would anticipate an even more exponential growth of 
interest by Americans. In the overwhelming demand and proven need to 
educate our youth of the folly of mindless hatred, I see the intense 
need to reflect a higher sense of urgency by accommodating the request 
for the full funding of the council, the museum, and their activities.
  I would like to inform my fellow Senators of my intention to ask my 
colleagues to give every consideration to accepting the House mark when 
they go to conference.
  I yield the floor.


                                  nrsa

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask Senator Gorton a question 
concerning scientists currently employed by the National Resources 
Science Agency [NRSA] who had been transferred from the National Park 
Service in 1993.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be delighted to engage in a colloquy with my 
friend from New Mexico. I know he has a concern with the budget impact 
of the Interior appropriations bill on those scientists within the NRSA 
who advise the Park Service on science-based natural resources 
management.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. From my understanding, the National Park Service 
transferred about 100 knowledgeable scientists to the NRSA in 1993. 
These scientists provide long-term information that helps direct 
management decisions. I am concerned for those scientist positions that 
will have to be eliminated due to budget constraints. Is it the 
Senator's position that the National Park Service, in coordination with 
the NRSA, should be included in the National Resources Science Agency's 
priority setting efforts for National Park Service research.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator is correct. In fact, I believe it is in 
the long-term interest for the national parks to be able to rely on an 
established pool of scientific knowledge and less on managerial 
guesswork and to have input into the priority setting of the NRSA.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for discussing this subject with 
me.
                              ellis island

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with the chairman of 
the subcommittee an issue of importance to millions of Americans. I 
hope to clarify the intent of the subcommittee and keep intact the 
integrity of what, to many, is a solemn place.
   Mr. President, over a period of 62 years, more than 12 million 
immigrants sailed into the gateway to the United States, Ellis Island, 
NY. They arrived from the four corners of the Earth with only a handful 
of possessions, uncertain of what they would find. From Ellis Island, 
these individuals spread into every part of our land, eager to explore 
the opportunities that our dynamic Nation presented.
  Many Americans, including a number of our colleagues, can trace their 
heritage to Ellis Island. To those who passed through the great hall 
and to their descendants, Ellis Island is considered a hallowed place. 
It is not a place to be treated insignificantly, it is a place to be 
respected.
  That is why, Mr. President, I am weary of anything relating to Ellis 
Island that could somehow cheapen its meaning. That is why I have 
repeatedly opposed constructing a permanent bridge linking the mainland 
to Ellis Island. Our ancestors did not arrive at Ellis Island by foot, 
by horse, by cart, or by automobile. Every one of them arrived by boat. 
A permanent bridge would violate the cultural and historical context of 
Ellis Island, and would only serve to trivialize and detract from the 
experience of how our ancestors came to pass through Ellis Island.
  Therefore, I am sure that my colleague from Washington can understand 
my concern with language included in the bill before us that prevents 
the demolition of the current, temporary bridge that runs to Ellis 
Island. In addition, as I understand, the language makes this temporary 
structure available to pedestrians provided that proper safety measures 
are enacted and enforced.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is correct. This 
is language that was included in the House-passed version of this 
legislation. The other body voted 230 to 196 to include this language. 
Also, it is the intent of the subcommittee that this language will 
prevent a situation from arising that the Senator describes, mainly, 
the construction of a permanent bridge.
  I understand and respect the concerns of the Senator from New York 
that vehicle traffic not disrupt the cultural and historical context of 
Ellis Island. Further, the committee is devoted to ensuring the safety 
of visitors to Ellis Island and will expect strict adherence to all 
relevant safety guidelines before any pedestrian traffic is allowed. It 
is my intention to follow the progress of the execution of this 
provision and will consult with the Senator from New York as to its 
effectiveness.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague for that clarification. 
As I stated, I become concerned when I feel the integrity of Ellis 
Island is put into question. Fortunately, the chairman's leadership has 
given me confidence that this provision will be given the utmost 
scrutiny. I look forward to working closely with him on this issue.
   Mr. President, I would like to receive further clarification from 
the chairman of the subcommittee on another matter in relation to Ellis 
Island.
  As I understand, the present bill language places a 30-day hold on 
implementing any plan to develop the southern end of Ellis Island until 
the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate have been 
notified and 

[[Page S12032]]
given a full and comprehensive report on such development.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend. Ellis Island is a place that is of 
special interest to all Americans. Therefore, I believe that it is very 
important that any interested Member of Congress be notified before the 
National Park Service undergoes any attempt to redevelop the southern 
end of Ellis Island.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would say to my friend that I understand 
his concern that he or any Senator who is interested in the 
redevelopment of Ellis Island be made aware of any plans to do so. I 
would expect that the Park Service would honor any request to be so 
notified.
  To be clear, it is not the intent of the subcommittee to allow such 
action without scrutiny. Further, the subcommittee would expect the 
National Park Service on its own, to be cognizant of the concerns of 
those Members of Congress who express an interest in the redevelopment 
of Ellis Island and take those concerns into consideration prior to 
entering into any such agreement.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
                   federal appliance energy standards

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to engage in a colloquy on this amendment 
with the bill manager, Senator Gorton, and Senator Ford. Federal 
appliance efficiency standards were established because manufacturers 
wanted one Federal standard as opposed to 50 different, and perhaps 
inconsistent, standards. If the Department of Energy cannot implement 
Federal standards, the States might attempt to revive their individual 
programs. The appliance standards adopted to date will save consumers a 
net of $132 billion over the lifetime of the affected products. The 
Department has committed to work cooperatively with manufacturers to 
address concerns raised in current reviews of the appliance standards. 
Where industry has raised significant criticisms of DOE's analysis or 
approach, as with recent proposals concerning fluorescent lamp ballasts 
and electric water heaters, DOE has organized workshops and public 
meetings with manufacturers to solicit further input and work together 
to correct the problems. The consensus approach to revising standards 
should be continued.
  Mr. FORD. We all recognize the value of appliance efficiency 
standards, the cost and energy savings that have been achieved with the 
existing standards. However, the manufacturers have raised concerns 
about the methodology and assumptions in the Department's current cost-
benefit analysis. For example, the burden on firms with small market 
shares need to be addressed. We expect the Department to analyze the 
impact of any modifications to standards for both small and large 
manufacturers. The cumulative impact of regulations across product 
lines should also be incorporated into the analysis.
  Mr. GORTON. This amendment will only affect the proposal, issuance, 
or prescription of new or amended standards. There will be no limits on 
analysis or information exchange. Nor will there be any prohibition or 
limits on planning by the Department of Energy. The Senate expects that 
the Department and the manufactures will spend the next year working 
together to analyze existing standards in order to conduct accurate 
economic analyses and impact assessments. The second part of the 
amendment also clarifies that the Department may proceed to establish 
efficiency standards for the construction of new federally owned 
commercial and residential buildings. The Department can and should 
establish minimum efficiency requirements for construction of new 
Federal facilities, such as military housing and office buildings.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I fully agree that, at a minimum, we have to be able to 
proceed with the rules affecting Federal facilities. Once built, the 
taxpayers will have to cover the energy bills for the life of a 
facility. These standards are required by the Energy Policy Act, which 
was overwhelmingly supported by the Senate. Furthermore, under the 
Federal budget situation, we have to do everything we can to minimize 
ongoing operating costs. To summarize the amendment, it is my 
understanding that this amendment will only preclude the proposal, 
issuance, or prescription of rules on new or amended appliance and 
equipment standards. Testing and labeling will continue. There will not 
be any limit on grants for State programs or the Home Energy Ratings 
Systems [HERS] pilot projects.
                          oriskany battlefield

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to seek the guidance of my friend, 
the Senator from Washington, with respect to undertaking a management 
plan for Oriskany Battlefield.
  Oriskany Battlefield is a national historic landmark that designates 
the site of a major American Revolutionary War battle. On that site, 
American patriots fought British regulars, loyalists, and certain 
nations of the Iroquois Confederation. Of particular interest is the 
involvement of four of the six nations of the Confederation on the side 
of the British. The Oneida and Tuscarora Nations within the Iroquois 
Confederation chose to support the Americans over the British, leading, 
as is believed, to the dissolution of the 200 year-old Confederation.
  The significance of the battlefield, its proximity to another 
historic and integrally linked national site, Fort Stanwix National 
Monument, and the circumstances surrounding the involvement of the 
combatants make Oriskany Battlefield an ideal candidate for possible 
inclusion in the National Park System. There is demonstrated interest 
on the part of citizens of the local community, New York State, and the 
Oneida Nation of New York to explore the option of a larger Federal 
role in the site. However, in order to do this, a general planning 
study must be undertaken.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am familiar with the request of the 
Senator from New York to have this study conducted by the Park Service. 
The subcommittee is confident that the Park Service will give due 
consideration to the Senator's request to include Oriskany Battlefield 
in the National Park System.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend.
                     intertribal bison cooperative

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
clarify the intent of the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the 
funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs bison restoration projects.
  As you may know, the Intertribal Bison Cooperative was formed 3 years 
ago with only nine tribes as members. ITBC's mission is to reestablish 
healthy bison populations on tribal lands in a manner that promotes 
economic development, cultural enhancement, ecological restoration, and 
spiritual revitalization.
  The role of ITBC, as established by its membership, is to act as a 
facilitator in coordinating education and training programs, develop 
marketing strategies, coordinate the transfer of surplus buffalo from 
national parks to tribal lands, and provide technical assistance to its 
membership in developing management plans that will help each tribal 
herd become a successful and self-sufficient operation.
  Today, the cooperative works with 36 member tribes spread across 15 
States. The united efforts of cooperative member tribes to restore the 
Nation's bison population have created much-needed economic development 
for the member tribes through the sale of buffalo meat and other 
byproducts.
  Last year, the Bureau of Indian Affairs put the cooperative's bison 
herd management program in jeopardy by distributing its limited fiscal 
year 1995 funds among any or all of the federally recognized Indian 
tribes. The effect of this action has the potential to undermine the 
cooperative spirit that ITBC has worked many years to achieve and that 
has fostered its success. I believe that the BIA's interpretation of 
congressional intent was clearly in error.
  It has been consistently my belief that the ITBC, which has proven 
its success in achieving self-sufficiency, warrants investment by 
Congress. Of course, tribes wishing to qualify for Federal bison 
restoration funding are free to become members of the cooperative.
  I would like to take this opportunity to inquire of my colleagues 
whether it is the intent of the Appropriations Committee to distribute 
fiscal year 1996 bison project funds specifically to the Intertribal 
Bison Cooperative and its member tribes.

[[Page S12033]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota, Senator 
Daschle is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would ask the chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, if he concurs that my 
understanding that the fiscal year 1996 bison restoration project funds 
are to be solely designated for the Intertribal Bison Cooperative and 
its member tribes is correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that is correct. It is the intent of the 
Appropriations Committee that fiscal year 1996 funding for bison 
restoration projects be distributed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
the Intertribal Bison Cooperative and not to all federally recognized 
tribes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank my colleagues from the committee for 
this clarification.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and related agencies, Senator 
Gorton, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for the work that they 
and their staffs have done in shepherding the Interior appropriations 
bill through subcommittee and full committee. I would like to engage 
the senior Senators from West Virginia and Washington in a colloquy 
regarding the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  The subcommittee has funded the museum at the 1995 level of 
$26,609,000. As my colleagues know, the House-passed Interior bill 
appropriates $28,707,000. This is a $2,098,000 increase over fiscal 
year 1995. The added funds are needed for the institution to meet the 
extraordinary and unanticipated demand from visitors and the attendant 
heightened security and wear-and-tear on the building.
  Let me just illustrate this point. Before opening to the public 2\1/
2\ years ago, the museum estimated the likely visitation at 500,000 
annually. Instead, the museum has had over 2,000,000 visitors each year 
instead of the 500,000 anticipated. I am especially heartened by who is 
coming to the Holocaust Museum. Four out of five visitors travel more 
than 100 miles to see the permanent exhibit. In 1955, more than 285,000 
students will tour the museum as part of organized groups. The 
Holocaust Museum is a destination point in Washington, and is now one 
of the most visited museums in Washington.
  And the museum's reach does not stop at the Potomac. The institution 
is assisting teachers, scholars, survivors, and our veterans in making 
sense of this dark hour in world history. It has responded to 70,000 
requests from educators; its Internet mailbox, open less than 6 months, 
receives 15,000 inquiries a week; and its research institute has 
assisted 11,000 scholars and researchers and 14,500 survivors.
  In short, the Holocaust Museum has done all that the Congress 
envisioned for it and more. This remarkable success, when coupled with 
its newness, makes its case especially persuasive. I ask my colleagues 
to give every consideration to accepting the House's mark when they go 
to conference.
  Mr. GORTON. I recently met with the new Director of the Holocaust 
Museum, Dr. Walter Reich. I told him then that I am now a great 
supporter of his institution. I think it has made a powerful and 
necessary contribution to the Nation's education and remembrance.
  As the Senator from Alaska knows, the committee had to make some 
painful choices during the markups. I have listened to his persuasive 
statement, and I want to assure him that I will review the facts and 
give every consideration to the House's funding level for the museum.
  Mr. BYRD. This Nation has created a museum of memory, a memorial to 
the victims of the Holocaust. It teaches us the lessons of what happens 
when democracy is not preserved, when democratic practices are 
subverted, when the public will is subjugated. I, too, want to commend 
the museum on its efforts and successes, and I want to say to Senator 
Stevens and other Members of this body that I will listen carefully and 
give the Senator from Alaska's proposal to fund the Holocaust Museum 
every consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the senior 
Senators from West Virginia and Washington in a colloquy concerning a 
particular need in Alaska that just recently came to my attention and 
is not currently addressed in the bill.
  Alaska Senator Robin Taylor has advised me of the need to provide 
funds in the U.S. Forest Service budget for some critical environmental 
studies related to construction of the American portion of a proposed 
public toll road from the Iskut River region of British Columbia, 
Canada to the Bradfield Canal near Wrangell, AK. This is called the 
Bradfield Road.
  An environmental impact statement is required because the road must 
cross through the Tongass National Forest, which encompasses most of 
southeastern Alaska. The Tongass is the country's largest national 
forest at 16.7 million acres, an area larger than the States of West 
Virginia and Rhode Island combined. Because of its immense size, almost 
no road can be constructed to serve southeastern communities that does 
not traverse the Tongass National Forest.
  Mr. GORTON. Why is the road needed?
  Mr. STEVENS. With no existing road, Wrangell is currently 
economically isolated. It is served only by air and ferry. Until 
recently Wrangell's economy was largely dependent on the timber 
industry. However, last year the U.S. Forest Service unilaterally 
canceled Alaska Pulp Company's 50-year timber contract, resulting in 
the closure of the Wrangell sawmill. As a result, the unemployment rate 
has skyrocketed up to 40 percent and climbing. Unless a new economy 
develops, the city and its residents face a harsh winter ahead.
  The proposed Bradfield Road would provide the shortest route to 
tidewater for several Canadian gold and copper mining operations. The 
nearest Canadian port to the mining district is roughly four times 
farther than Alaska's Bradfield Canal. The Bradfield Road would not 
only reduce transportation costs and the overall environmental impact 
of the project, but it would create American jobs in Wrangell. The 
people of Wrangell would be involved in constructing the road in the 
short-term, and in the long-term would have access to mining jobs in 
Canada and increased tourism opportunities in the area.
  The Alaska State Legislature has already committed to pay the 
construction costs of the road through revenue bonds. Commercial and 
public traffic will pay a toll to use the road, which will finance its 
operation and maintenance. The only contribution required from the 
Federal Government is funds to conduct the EIS required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  I propose that $2.5 million of the funds provided in this bill to be 
allocated to region 10--the Alaska region--be allocated to conduct the 
EIS required by NEPA. The funds should be taken out of non-timber-
producing accounts such as recreation and administration.
  Mr. GORTON. Given the severe economic dislocation occurring in 
Wrangell as a result of the U.S. Forest Service's decision to terminate 
the contract which provided timber to the Wrangell mill, I agree that 
the Bradfield Road should be given priority. I concur with my good 
friend from Alaska that the Service should allocate the funds necessary 
to complete the environmental studies. The Service should be directed 
to fund this project out of accounts not designated to produce timber 
in region 10.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
concur?
  Mr. BYRD. Since the Alaska State Legislature has agreed to fund 
construction of the road and provide for its operation and maintenance, 
I support the concept of directing the Service to conduct the necessary 
environmental studies. The funds should be reallocated out of nontimber 
funds already budgeted for region 10.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton and 
commend him for the great job he has done putting together a very 
difficult bill. There are important parts of this bill that will have a 
lasting impact. One of those is the extension of the Endangered Species 
Act moratorium which I sponsored, and was enacted, several months ago 
to try to wait until 

[[Page S12034]]
we have reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act so that future 
listings will have the stamp of congressional intent in a revised 
Endangered Species Act.
  This moratorium is a very important part of the legislation before 
us. We have seen so many jobs lost, so many people devastated in their 
ability to use their land and farm and ranch and make their 
livelihoods, because of the Endangered Species Act being overzealously 
enforced.
  I believe that the Endangered Species Act was passed with all the 
right intentions, and I think many of the things that are done by Fish 
and Wildlife are very good. But we have seen such excesses that the 
water supply of two cities in my State, Amarillo and San Antonio, have 
been endangered by bait fish, the Arkansas River shiner and the 
fountain darter in the Edwards aquifer.
  We now see the same thing coming forward with the same Edwards 
aquifer, only this time it is three beetles that have now been proposed 
as endangered, despite the effect on the water supply of the 10th 
largest city in America.
  So I do appreciate the fact that we are extending the moratorium 
until the earlier of reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, or 
until the end of 1996, which will give Congress the time to set 
parameters for the Endangered Species Act that will assure that we have 
balanced the needs of people with species.
  We added money to the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget during floor 
debate on this bill. I expect that the listing money will be used only 
to delist some of the endangered species that really should not be on 
the list, and the prelisting money for species conservation so that we 
will not have to list new endangered species. That would be a very good 
use of our taxpayer dollars.
  The second thing that I think is very important that we put in this 
bill, and I want to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for agreeing 
to do it, is in the National Biological Survey language. We make sure 
that a private property owner must give permission for any new surveys 
under this act, and including aerial surveys.
  We have had instances in my State and others where airplanes paid for 
by the National Biological Survey have flown over private property 
without permission taking pictures for habitat studies. That is now 
prohibited in this act. That is why I think it is very important that 
we pass the act and say, once again, that private property is protected 
by the Constitution of the United States.
  I think the Congress is speaking today to make sure that everyone 
understands--that the people in Washington, in Government understand--
that we are going to protect private property rights, and I think we 
have taken a step in the right direction today.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the fiscal year 
1996 Interior Department appropriations bill as reported by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee does not earmark funds for land purchases 
within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area [SMMNRA]. I 
am greatly concerned that this remarkable national treasure--an island 
of green in an urban sea--now faces the prospect of increased 
development within its boundaries. We must not let this happen. Our 
continued support of this majestic recreation area is crucial.
  The open spaces of the SMMNRA stretch over 50 miles from Elysian Park 
in downtown Los Angeles to Point Mugu State Park in Ventura County. The 
mountains climb from the Pacific Ocean to provide breathtaking vistas 
of the Los Angeles Basin, the blue Pacific, and the San Fernando 
Valley.
  The Santa Monica Mountains are the only undeveloped pristine mountain 
range in the world that bisects a major city--in this case the Nation's 
second largest. In addition, the Los Angeles area has one of the lowest 
amounts of open parkland per capita in the United States.
  This national recreation area provides recreational opportunities for 
more than 12 million people living in surrounding communities--
including hikers, campers, picnickers, and nature lovers, young and 
old. The beauty of the recreation area leads many visitors to express 
amazement that they are just minutes from an urban area the size of Los 
Angeles. In the mountains, a variety of wildlife live and thrive, 
including mountain lions, deer, and a dozen endangered plants and 
animals. 369 bird species, 50 species of mammals, and 36 kinds of 
reptiles and amphibians call this area home.
  The land that was to be purchased through funding in the fiscal year 
1996 Interior appropriations bill includes undeveloped canyons, key 
wildlife corridors, and trailways that provide coastal access and link 
several major activity centers throughout the SMMNRA.
  Significant progress on land acquisitions was made with the purchase 
of the Jordan Ranch, the largest acquisition in the park's history, but 
delays have escalated purchase costs and threaten opportunities to 
acquire key parcels that otherwise may be developed. Biologically 
significant areas could be lost if we do not act now.
  Although I would have preferred a specific allocation for this 
request, there is still an opportunity to get funds from this bill. Of 
the $43.2 million appropriated by the bill for land acquisition by the 
National Park Service, approximately $6 million is designated for 
emergencies and hardships and inholdings. I intend to call on the 
Clinton administration to designate the Santa Monica Mountains project 
as a top priority for funding under these provisions.
  We must continue our commitment to the Santa Monica Mountains 
National Recreation Area. We must do this for ourselves and our 
environment, and the name of future generations--so that they may enjoy 
the rich natural splendor of the southern California landscape.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate agreed to 
accept an amendment to this bill that imposes a 1-year moratorium on 
issuance of new or amended appliance efficiency standards. The 
amendment will not prevent engineering or economic analyses on 
efficiency standards, but it will stall issuance of new or amended 
rules for a year. This is a limited delay in the implementation 
process, only until September 30, 1996, so that appliance manufacturers 
can work out their concerns with the process with the Department of 
Energy [DOE]. The manufacturers and the Department are expected to 
resolve differences with the methodology and assumptions in the current 
analytical process. A process to mitigate the affect of any retooling 
modifications on small manufacturers should be worked out so that any 
potential for anticompetitive impacts will be resolved early in future 
rulemakings. Consensus and voluntary efforts are not affected and 
should proceed. Appliance testing and labeling will continue and no 
limits will be imposed on the State grant program or the home energy 
ratings system. The Department is also expected to proceed with 
issuance of rules on minimum efficiency standards for federal-owned 
buildings as required in the Energy Policy Act.
  The efficiency program authorized under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act [EPCA], as amended, has been one of our Nation's most 
effective programs at ensuring wiser energy use. The appliance 
efficiency standards currently in place will save consumers over $132 
billion over the life of the products. In the 100th Congress, the 
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 was enacted 
establishing minimum Federal appliance standards. Additional amendments 
were enacted in 1988. Both bills were reported unanimously by the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. These two actions 
amended EPCA to require and set Federal standards and preempt a 
patchwork of State standards. Congress established minimum Federal 
standards by statute to take effect between 1988 and 1993, depending on 
the product. DOE was required to conduct follow up rulemakings to 
determine whether the standards established in the statute were 
adequate.
  Under EPCA, the DOE standards rulemakings require very specific cost-
benefit analyses. The criteria for prescribing new or amended standards 
specifically require the Secretary to determine that benefits exceed 
the burdens to the greatest extent practicable, considering the 
following: the economic impact on manufacturers and 

[[Page S12035]]
consumers; a determination of a positive net present value to the 
consumer of any increased price; any lessening of consumer utility or 
product performance; impact on competition as determined by the 
Attorney General; and any other factors considered relevant.
  Any final rule will have to address all of the above issues. In 
addition, none of the new standards would go into effect for 3 to 5 
years after the final rule is in effect.
  The process followed under EPCA entails issuance of an advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking [ANOPR] to solicit the necessary 
information to carry out cost-benefit and detailed engineering analyses 
of the feasibility of any proposed standard. A notice of proposed 
rulemaking [NOPR] is subsequently published with draft proposed 
standards, including the cost-benefit criteria and engineering analyses 
used in developing the proposal. The Department of Justice and all 
interested persons are asked to comment on the NOPR. EPCA requires the 
Secretary to hold a conference or informal procedure to allow 
interested parties an opportunity to question written or oral 
presentations of U.S. employees where facts are in dispute. DOE then 
drafts a proposed final rule based on the input received from the 
previous two rounds of public comment.
  DOE is attempting to work collaboratively with the industry to 
develop the engineering and economic models. The Congress and the 
public have strongly supported this program in the past and after the 
opportunity for the Department and industry to come to closure on 
certain technical issues, the program will continue without 
interference as Congress intended.
                   IHS Study on Staffing Distribution

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the floor managers, the 
distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], and the 
distinguished Senator for West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], and the members of 
their staffs, for working with me on this amendment. I am very pleased 
that they have agreed to accept it.
  I offered this amendment to help ensure that the IHS meets the health 
care needs of the American Indians in an equitable, cost-efficient 
manner. The amendment requires the Secretary to submit a report to the 
Congress that contains a comparison and analysis of IHS staffing by 
health facility and service unit.
  For several years, I have been very concerned about the inability of 
the Indian Health Service to fully meet the health care needs of 
American Indians in my home State of New Mexico and throughout the 
country. I am particularly apprehensive about the new IHS hospital in 
Shiprock, NM, which opened last year under-staffed and which remains 
understaffed today.
  Too often in the past, the Federal Government has overlooked the 
health care needs of American Indians. As a result, the IHS currently 
meets only 45 percent of the total estimated health care need of our 
Nation's 1.3 million Indians and Alaska Natives.
  I am concerned that in our zeal to lower the Federal budget deficit 
and cut waste from the system, we will do harm to Indian children and 
families if we do not develop strategies for dealing with existing and 
project funding and staffing shortfalls. We need to work together to 
streamline administrative services, eliminate bureaucratic waste, and 
maximize existing resources through the thoughtful, mandatory 
redistribution of personnel and equipment from areas of lesser need and 
low productivity to areas of greater need and potential.
  This amendment will help us achieve these goals. Specifically:
  First, distribution study and report: To ensure that the Indian 
Health Service meets the health care needs of the American Indians in 
an equitable manner, the Secretary is directed to submit to the 
Congress a report containing a comparative analysis of Indian Health 
Service staffing by health facility and Service Unit.
  Such report and analysis shall:
  First, intra-facility ratio: Compare the ratio of health care 
providers--by profession--to patients in each IHS hospital facility and 
clinic;
  Second, Inter-facility ratio: Compare facility ratios throughout the 
IHS system to ensure that all areas of the country are being served 
equitably; and
  Third, Overall staffing distribution: Analyze overall staffing and 
distribution levels, including all types of health professionals, 
support staff, and administrative staff.
  Again, I thank the managers of the bill and their staffs for 
accepting this amendment.
             klamath national wildlife refuge pesticide use

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
1996 Interior appropriations bill, I want to express my concerns about 
language in the committee report that affects the natural resources and 
wildlife of California.
  I am disappointed that the Senate Appropriations Committee added 
language to the bill that prohibits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
from enforcing its pesticide use policies in the Lower Klamath and Tule 
Lake National Wildlife Refuges in northern California and southern 
Oregon. Specifically, the language states that pesticide use can 
continue if the pesticide meets applicable Federal and State pesticide 
laws for use on non-Federal land. According to the Department of the 
Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, this language, if enacted, 
will significantly increase the risk of pesticide related deaths of 
migratory birds and endangered species on these protected lands. Mr. 
President, this land is federally owned but leased to private 
individuals, and this language would override the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's authority to restrict pesticide use on public land even when 
the pesticide endangers the wildlife the Service is directed to 
protect.
  This requirement needlessly micro- manages specific national wildlife 
refuges and undermines the conservation aims of the refuge system. 
Thirty-five herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and nematocides made 
with chemicals known to have reproductive- and endocrine-disrupting 
effects will be allowed to be used in the next year as a result of this 
language.
  Unfortunately, the language in the Senate bill may be the best option 
available to the Fish and Wildlife Service since the House has 
addressed this issue by passing the National Wildlife Refuge 
Improvement Act of 1995, which permanently prohibits the Fish and 
Wildlife Service from enforcing its pesticide use policies in the 
Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. A permanent ban on the 
enforcement of pesticide policies in these refuges is even more 
disturbing than a 1-year moratorium on enforcement.
  The Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
share my concerns about the language contained in the Interior 
appropriations bill, but believe that they will be able to work out a 
compromise with the parties involved in the next year. This negotiation 
and eventual resolution would remove the need for a permanent ban. I 
sincerely hope that all interested parties are able to resolve the 
questions surrounding the use of pesticides in our refuges in a timely 
manner. I will be monitoring this process closely and, if necessary, I 
will fight any permanent ban against enforcement of these pesticide use 
policies.
                             HIV-AIDS STUDY

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, over the past several months, I have met 
with several groups from New Mexico's Indian tribes to discuss the 
Indian Health Service and the health needs of American Indians. Many 
mentioned to me that, like the rest of the population in the United 
States, the incidences of HIV and AIDS is growing among native American 
populations. I learned recently that on the Navajo Nation, which 
includes parts of the States of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, 53 cases 
of HIV and AIDS have been reported to IHS. A few years ago, there were 
almost none.
  Unfortunately, many of the people who care for HIV-AIDS-infected 
native Americans believe that the IHS has not begun taking aggressive 
steps to meet this growing--and potentially very costly--need. Current 
IHS policy is to treat HIV-AIDS-infected patients with general IHS 
service funds. The IHS is not funded through the Ryan White CARE Act, 
although I believe it should be. The result is that already 
insufficient funds are squeezed even tighter.
  My amendment would simply require the IHS to do a little preplanning. 
It directs the IHS to undertake a study of the existing need and 
develop a plan for meeting the need. Specifically:

[[Page S12036]]

  (I) Study: The Secretary is directed to report to Congress, by 
Service unit, on: (1) incidences of HIV-AIDS among the American Indians 
and Alaska Natives; (2) services provided under the PHS Act to HIV-
AIDS-positive Indians; (3) unmet needs, including preventive 
educational needs, of Indians and Alaska Natives living with HIV-AIDS 
who use the IHS for primary health care; (4) capacity of each Service 
unit to meet the existing need; and (5) resources, including education, 
needed to meet existing and projected need.
  (II) Plan: Based on the results of the study, the Secretary is 
directed to develop a plan meeting the existing and projected needs.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of bill for accepting my 
amendment, and I look forward to working on this issue with them and 
other interested Members of Congress as the Interior appropriations 
bill goes to conference with the House. I believe we will be able to 
effectively deal with this amendment and its reporting requirements 
during the conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Chairman, the 
senior Senator from Washington, for doing an outstanding job on a very 
difficult bill. There are many divisive issues that lend themselves to 
one-sided partisanship in the interior appropriations bill. Senator 
Gorton presided over a balanced and responsible bill that maintained 
our commitment to good government and saved more than $1 billion. I 
want to commend him for his excellent work and thank him for the 
integrity and fairness of his efforts.
  I also want to thank Senator Byrd, whose wisdom, experience and 
fairness is a perennial asset in putting this bill together. I am very 
grateful for the bipartisanship represented in this bill, and look 
forward to working with the Chairman and the ranking member as we go to 
conference.
  There are a few programs that I want to highlight that were served 
very well by the Chairman, such as the National Biological Survey 
(NBS). Some interest groups and Members of Congress use the NBS as a 
hook to hang all sorts of fears and frustrations about natural resource 
management. In fact, the NBS is not comprised of new money, new 
employees, or new research objectives. It is simply a consolidated 
collection of all the research that has been going on for decades 
assembled under one, non-regulatory agency so that science can be 
served well. Chairman Gorton and Senator Byrd also took fair and 
balanced positions on endangered species act funding, the water 
institutes, the Appalachian Trail, the Park Service, and Federal land 
acquisition.
  I want to thank the managers of the bill for making changes to the 
AmeriCorps language at the request of Senator Murray and myself. I also 
appreciate their willingness to work with me on the National Endowment 
for the Arts and on the Stewardship Incentive Program. I believe the 
revised language for the ecosystem management objectives for the 
eastern Oregon and Washington is also a valuable improvement.
  Finally, I want to express some disappointments that I wish we could 
have improved. In particular, I was sorry to see such substantial cuts 
in the weatherization program which is so important to frost belt 
states like my native state of Vermont. While the Senate mark is higher 
than the House, it still respresents a cut that will have a significant 
impact in Vermont. I hope in conference we can protect the Senate 
funding. I had also hoped to see stronger funding for Historic 
Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the 
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program. Vermont leverages 
$28 for every Federal historic preservation dollar with our Main Street 
program. I was disappointed by a complete elimination of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund State grant program and the 50 percent cut in 
the Forest Legacy program. Both of these items are critically important 
to my State. Lastly, I wish we could have continued our efforts to 
restore the Atlantic Salmon to the Connecticut River with a buy-out of 
foreign fishermen who harvest our hatchery stock on the high seas.
  Nonetheless, as a former subcommittee Chairman myself, I am well 
aware that the Chairman and ranking member cannot make good on every 
request, especially in times like these. I hope that they will bear in 
mind my thoughts as we go to conference with the House. I want to thank 
both the managers for their leadership and congratulate them again on a 
difficult but successful Interior Appropriations bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, most Members have been notified that we 
did not expect to have a rollcall vote on final passage of this bill. 
There has now been a request by a Member for a rollcall.
  So, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment Nos. 2326 and 2327, En Bloc

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Bingaman, and I ask for their consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes amendments numbered 2326 and 2327, en bloc.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2326

 (Purpose: To provide for a comparative analysis of the Indian Health 
                                Service)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROFESSIONALS.

       (a) In General.--To ensure that the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary''), acting through the Indian Health Service, is 
     making efforts to meet the health care needs of Indian tribes 
     (as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)) in an 
     equitable manner, the Secretary shall, not later than April 
     30, 1996, submit to the Congress a report that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report prepared by the 
     Secretary under this section shall--
       (1) contain a comparative analysis of the Indian Health 
     Service staffing that includes comparisons of health care 
     facilities (including clinics) and service units (as defined 
     in section 4(j) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1603(j));
       (2) for each health care facility of the Indian Health 
     Service (as determined by the Secretary), determine, for each 
     health profession (as defined in section 4(n) of the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603(n)), the ratio 
     of--
       (A) the number of members of that health profession that 
     provide health services in that facility; to
       (B) the number of patients served by the members of that 
     health profession in that facility;
       (3) provide a comparative nationwide analysis of health 
     care facilities of the Indian Health Service based on the 
     ratios determined under paragraph (2) in order to ascertain 
     whether each service area (as defined in section 4(m) of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603(m)) is 
     providing an equitable level of health services; and
       (4) provide an analysis of--
       (A) the overall levels of staffing of all types of health 
     professions, support staff, and administrative staff at 
     facilities referred to in paragraph (3); and
       (B) the distribution of the staffing referred to in 
     subparagraph (a) by service unit.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2327

 (Purpose: To provide for a program of HIV Prevention and Treatment in 
                       the Indian Health Service)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . HIV-AIDS PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PLAN.

       (a) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1996, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services (hereafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``Secretary''), acting through the Indian Health 
     Service and in consultation with Indian tribes (as defined in 
     section 4(d) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1603(d)), shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 
     report that evaluates,
       (1) the incidences of HIV and AIDS among Indian tribes;
       (2) the services provided under title XXVI of the Public 
     Health Service Act to members of Indian tribes living with 
     HIV and AIDS;
       (3) the unmet needs, including preventive educational 
     needs, of members of Indian 

[[Page S12037]]
     tribes living with HIV and AIDS who use the Indian Health Service for 
     their primary health care;
       (4) the internal capacity of each service unit of the 
     Indian Health Service to meet the existing need; and
       (5) the resources, including education, needed to meet 
     existing and projected need.
       (b) Service Plan.--The Secretary, acting through the Indian 
     Health Service and in consultation with Indian tribes, shall 
     develop and implement a plan of action for meeting the 
     existing and projected needs, which based on the evaluation 
     conducted pursuant to subsection (a), are determined to be 
     unmet.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, each of these amendments is for a study 
within the Indian Health Service.
  We have not had time to deal with them to the point at which we have 
full confidence in them, though each of them appears to have a degree 
of merit.
  I ask that they be agreed. But we will have to look at them very 
carefully on both sides during the course of the conference committee 
and see whether or not they are appropriate or need to be revised. But 
at this point we are willing to accept them.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendments meet with approval on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
of the Senator from New Mexico, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2326 and 2327) were agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the only two matters that remain are a 
significant number of colloquies and third reading and final passage.
  We will ask unanimous consent for the colloquies later. But in order 
to speed on with this evening, I ask for third reading. There will be 
no further amendments.
  I do not believe there will be any further debate.
  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?
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 378 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--6

     Heflin
     Helms
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the bill (H.R. 1977), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
bill was passed.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. 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 conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Thereupon, the Presiding Officer (Mr. Abraham) appointed Mr. Gorton, 
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Bennett, Mr. Mack, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to state 
the obvious, but an obvious that is all too often overlooked, and that 
is that there was no possibility of dealing with this bill either in 
the timeframe within which we dealt with it, nor the effectiveness, nor 
efficiency, nor the wisdom with which we have dealt with it without the 
help of a number of dedicated members of the staff:
  Cherie Cooper, who is majority clerk; Sue Masica, the minority clerk; 
Carole Geagley; Kathleen Wheeler, who has worked on energy, BIA, the 
geological survey, land and water conservation accounts; Bruce Evans, 
who was formerly of my personal staff, who dealt with Fish and Wildlife 
Service, mines; Virginia James with NEH, which was, obviously, very 
controversial, and the Smithsonian; and Ted Milesnick, a detailee from 
the Bureau of Land Management to provide support service to all 
accounts; and my own staff member, Julie Kays, a legislative assistant 
on my staff who is tireless, fearless, and persuasive in all she does; 
and, once again, to thank Senator Byrd whose advice, counsel, and 
wisdom has been of great assistance, for that matter all of the members 
of my subcommittee, each of whom contributed significantly to this 
result.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will take a few seconds to express my 
admiration for Mr. Gorton because of the remarkably superb job that he 
did in skillfully piloting the appropriations bill for the Department 
of the Interior through committee and through the Senate. He did an 
outstanding job, and I am grateful to him and for his fairness, his 
courtesy, and for his ability in moving this bill.
  I also want to thank Sue Masica, my superb staff person, and Cherie 
Cooper is an equally superb staff person on the other side of the 
aisle. I think that this has been a preeminently fine display of skill 
and statesmanship on the part of Mr. Gorton on behalf of the Senate. I 
express all of our appreciation to him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Washington, 
Senator Gorton, and also the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
Senator Byrd, for their expeditious action on a very important and a 
very, in some areas, contentious bill. They have disposed of the 
amendments, I think, in very good time.
  Now we are prepared to move on to the next bill. Let me remind my 
colleagues, everything is on automatic pilot. The speech you do not 
make in the next 2 days means you will get out that much earlier. You 
can make the speech when you get home, and a lot of people have never 
heard it before and most of us have.

                          ____________________