[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18602-S18616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I will be very brief. I rise to speak in opposition to 
the conference report. I know there are others who want to speak, and I 
simply want to make a few points.
  I think it will be vetoed. I think it should be vetoed. I think that 
it continues the process of watering down our efforts to protect the 
environment, and it in my view should be rejected.
  There are three areas that I believe need our special attention. The 
first is that under the conference report the protection of fish, 
wildlife and plant species awaiting endangered species listing would be 
blocked for another year, even if the species is on the brink of 
extinction. 

[[Page S18603]]

  Mr. President, we have an Endangered Species Act in order to protect 
those species that are on the brink of extinction. If we delay listing 
year after year, we might as well not have a law. When you delay the 
implementation of this law, you do not have one at all. We cannot 
declare any species in that period of time as endangered and the damage 
may be permanent. This is of real concern in a number of areas, for 
example, the marbled murrelet. I also know that the Mount Graham 
squirrel is an important specie that is endangered and affected by this 
act. I am not sure that in the next year it is going to be all over for 
either one, but the general direction is clear. If we continue to 
prevent the law from functioning, we might as well not even have that 
law, which, of course, is the intention of some who will delay the 
implementation of the law.
  Second, Mr. President, is the rider on alternative P to the Tongass 
National Forest timber plan in Alaska. The conference report locks into 
place, through fiscal year 1997, the timber requirements of alternative 
P, which is a 4-year-old discredited draft forest plan. Alternative P 
mandates a logging target approximately 44 percent higher than the 
average cutting level over the past decade. And it does so in an area 
where the largest number of jobs are in tourism and fishing and not in 
timber cutting and in an area where unemployment is very low compared 
to the national average.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned about what we have done in this 
bill with regard to Tongass. I think that it allows for much more 
cutting than we had anticipated when we passed the 1990 Tongass Timber 
Reform Act. And it is another example of Congress' changing things for 
the worse after there has been an agreement because the votes are there 
to change those things. And I think, frankly, it will be one of the 
major reasons that the President will veto this bill.
  Finally, Mr. President, there are a series of cuts in vital programs. 
This bill follows the pattern set in the VA-HUD appropriations bill 
which makes reductions in the Corps of Engineers wetland enforcement 
budget and forbids the EPA from enforcing wetlands law, which in my 
State of New Jersey is a tremendously important thing.
  This bill repeals protection for the newly created Mojave National 
Park and halts scientific studies needed to protect critical species in 
the Columbia River basin.
  It halts the Department of Energy's program to set energy appliance 
efficiency standards that have been developed jointly with the 
industry, which will save consumers a lot of money and reduce the U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil. One might say you can save more oil from 
increased conservation than you could from opening up the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. President, this bill has gotten better, but it still does not 
meet what I think are the highest possible standards. The President's 
statement on the report cites several additional shortcomings. For 
example, there is $50 million in funding restored for the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This additional funding, 
however, falls short of levels needed to maintain these important 
programs.
  While the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget has been increased $25 
million above the previous conference level, that would still leave the 
program $111 million short of the House mark and $159 million below 
fiscal year 1995 enacted levels.
  The most significant effect of this action remains the crippling 
reductions targeted at tribal priority allocation programs which 
support essential tribal government, law enforcement, housing 
improvement, Indian child welfare, adult vocational training, road 
maintenance, and other basic reservation services.
  I believe that this funding should be restored. It is not in the 
report. I think this will be another reason that the President will 
veto this proposal.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, I think the report has gotten 
better, but it is not yet good enough. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the bill and the President to veto it because I do not think that the 
American people in 1994 voted for an attack on environmental problems. 
I believe we should not be delivering to the American people an 
antienvironmental Christmas present. I do not think they asked for it, 
and I do not think they will welcome it. I hope that the President will 
veto the bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. There are a lot of parts of this bill that I would like 
to address. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey that the bill is 
certainly better than it was in its original version. Thanks to the 
House of Representatives, who refused to accept it and voted 
overwhelmingly to recommit it to the conference, it has been improved.
  To tell you the truth, Mr. President, I am so sick of making this 
speech I am about to make, I cannot tell you how tiresome it is, and 
yet until the Members of this body change their attitude about mining 
on public lands, until the President and the press finally penetrate 
the minds of the American people as to this, the greatest of all scams 
in the history of the Nation, I will come here every year, time after 
time, to make my argument again.
  My mother used to have an expression, ``Everybody's business is 
nobody's business.'' And I cannot think of a better application of that 
saying than what we allow the biggest corporations in the world to pull 
off on us. It is just that it does not affect very many people.
  There are about 10 to 12 States out West where the Federal Government 
has extensive landholdings and where people file mineral claims to mine 
gold, silver, platinum, palladium, whatever, off the Federal lands, and 
it is very important to the mining companies and it is important to 
those few States where it takes place. But because the other roughly 40 
States do not have a dog in the fight, they feel free, Senators of 
those States feel free to vote however they chose in the certain 
knowledge that their constituents will never hold them accountable.
  But let me recount the history of the issue of which I speak. In 
1872, Ulysses Grant signed his name to the bill called the mining law 
of 1872. And the idea was we would permit people to go west and file 
claims on 20-acre parcels on the Federal lands there that the U.S. 
Government owned. Anybody could do it. And anybody can still do it. 
Just go out there and put four stakes down on a 20-acre tract, not just 
one, do a dozen if you want, two dozen, whatever you want. Just file 
claims on it. That started in 1872 as an incentive to get people to 
move west.
  When I first became involved in this issue there were about 1,200,000 
claims that had been filed. And they were required to either pay $100 a 
year to maintain the claim or to certify that they had done $100 worth 
of work on their claim.
  Well, everybody simply sent in a certification that said, ``I did 
$100 worth of work.'' Meanwhile, they had no intention of mining it. 
Finally, in 1993, I was able to get a bill passed through here to 
require them to put up $100--not a certificate that they had done $100 
worth of work, but pay $100 cash. The number of claims dropped from 1.2 
million to the present, roughly, 330,000.
  So we have these 330,000 claims out there. If you own one of those 
claims, what do you do next? If you are really serious about mining 
something, then you start digging around to see if that land has 
anything on it. Most of the time, Mr. President, the people who own 
these claims never lay a glove on them. Some mining company comes in 
and says, ``We will pay you so much to let us work this claim, and if 
we find anything there, we will give you a 5- or 10-percent override on 
everything we find.'' And, ordinarily, the person who owns the claim 
says, ``That is fine with me, you are a big mining company. If anybody 
can make this work, you can.'' The claimant gets a nice little override 
for having simply put down four stakes on a claim.
  But once the mining company finds something, gold, silver, whatever, 
they go to the Bureau of Land Management and they file an application 
for a deed. Now, this is really the most egregious part of this whole 
law. You think about somebody going out and putting down stakes on 
Federal land that belongs to the taxpayers of this country, finding 

[[Page S18604]]
gold on it, and going to the BLM over at the Department of Interior and 
saying, ``I want a deed to this land.'' Do you know what else? The 
Secretary of the Interior--if he can validate the claim that there is 
mineable hardrock minerals, has to give them a deed. It is not an 
option with him; he has to give them a deed. What do they pay for it? 
Either $2.50 an acre or $5.00 an acre--for billions of dollars' worth 
of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium. That is right, Mr. President. 
I am not making this up. I have made this speech every year for 7 
years. The Secretary of the Interior has to deed billions of dollars' 
worth of minerals that belongs to the taxpayers of this country to some 
huge mining company for $2.50 an acre.
  Now, the mining industry which promotes this scam recently felt some 
heat as the press has caught on to the issue. I can see the 
representatives from the mining industry all sitting around the table 
saying, ``What are we going to do? We cannot take this adverse 
publicity forever.'' And somebody says, ``I have a grand scheme. We 
will say that we will give the Government not $2.50 an acre, but we 
will pay them fair market value less the value of the minerals under 
the surface. That way, we can go home and tell the Chamber of Commerce 
if they raise the issue with us, if there is a townhall meeting and 
there are some of those people there who have been paying attention and 
want to know why we are giving billions of dollars away to the biggest 
corporations in the world, we will say that we will make them pay fair 
market value. That is where you cut it off. You do not say fair market 
value for the surface, which is $100 an acre. Just tell them it is fair 
market value.''
  That is what the reconciliation bill says. If the bill were to become 
law, the mining companies would have to pay fair market value, which 
CBO says is $100 an acre, underneath which is billions of dollars' 
worth of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, for which they pay 
nothing.
  Mr. President, there are not two Senators in this body that know 
this. It costs the Government $250 an acre just to process patent 
applications. Think about that. Here they are going to pay fair market 
value of $100 an acre. They are going to pay $100 an acre for something 
that just the processing of the claim costs the taxpayers $250. So we 
lose $150 per acre right on the front end.
  Mr. President, see this chart right here. ``Value for the interest in 
the land owned by the taxpayers exclusive of and without regard to the 
mineral deposits''--$2.50 an acre is the current price. The new price 
will go to $100 an acre. In exchange for that, the biggest corporations 
in the world, many of which are foreign-owned, take billions of 
dollars' worth of taxpayers' gold and silver off the land and go home 
with it.
  When I first got into this, the price of gold was $330 an ounce; 
platinum was selling for less than $400 an ounce. The argument was made 
that ``If we have to pay a 3-percent royalty, we might be able to live 
with that, but some of our mines might have to shut down and all these 
people will be thrown out of work.''
  Today, the price of gold is $390 an ounce, and platinum is $410 an 
ounce. And what do you think the same argument is? ``We will have to 
shut down and put all these poor people out of work.'' You know why I 
know personally? I am not a miner. Do you know why I know that is the 
most specious argument of all? Because they pay an average of a 5-
percent-net smelter return royalty to people who own private lands and 
pay substantial royalties to States if they mine on State lands. It is 
only when they mine on Federal lands they are going to go broke.
  On December 1, 2 weeks ago, Secretary Babbitt at the Department of 
the Interior gave ASARCO a deed for 349 acres in the Coronado National 
Forest in Arizona near Tucson. What do you think the taxpayers of this 
country got? First of all, that 349 acres has underneath it 2.9 billion 
dollars' worth of copper and silver. What do the taxpayers get?
  A whopping $1,745. Do you know something else? The Washington Post 
and the New York Times did not have one word about it. Not one line. I 
guarantee not one person in this body saw a news story anywhere that 2 
weeks ago the taxpayers got shafted for $3 billion. Three months before 
that, the Secretary of the Interior gave the Faxe Kalk Mine, a Danish 
corporation, a deed to 110 acres of public land in Idaho. What was 
under the 110 acres? Mr. President, $1 billion worth of travertine. 
What did the taxpayers get for their $1 billion? Mr. President, $275.
  On May 16, 1994, the Secretary of the Interior gave Barrick 
Resources, a subsidiary of a Canadian corporation, a deed for 1,700 
acres of land. What did it have under it? Mr. President, $11 billion 
worth of gold. What did the taxpayers get for their $11 billion?--
$9,000. I give the press credit; they did cover that one.
  Stillwater Mining Co. in Montana, 2 days after I almost got a 
moratorium put on the patenting process, filed a claim with the BLM for 
deeds to 2,036 acres. They filed for their patent in 1990. They got 
their first half certificate and the Secretary of the Interior will 
eventually be forced to give the Stillwater Mining Co. a deed for that 
2,036 acres. What is under that? Mr. President, $44 billion worth of 
platinum and palladium--not my figures, their figures. Look at their 
prospectus. They are the ones who say there is 225 ounces of platinum 
and palladium on the land. We made the calculation. If that is correct, 
it is $44 billion worth of platinum and palladium. What did Uncle 
Sucker get?--$10,000.
  We talk about balancing the budget; how are we going to finance 
Medicaid, education, the environment, and all the rest of it while we 
are giving away billions and billions of dollars' worth of resources 
that belong to the people of this country? There is not a Senator in 
this body that has not gone home when he faced reelection and said, 
``If you elect me, I will balance the budget. I will treat your money 
as though it were mine. I will be tightfisted.'' You may be tightfisted 
with some poor, pregnant, teenage girl, or you may elect to make 
Medicaid a block grant program so some children get health care and 
others do not. But if things continue the way they are, you can rest 
assured those same people who are so concerned about that will continue 
to vote for this just as they have in the past. It is absolutely 
sickening. There is no other way to describe it.
  This bill, thanks to the House of Representatives, contains a patent 
moratorium. Let me tell you about that. There are presently 608 patent 
applications pending over at the BLM. Of the 608, 373 of the 
applications already have their first half certificate so they can go 
ahead and get their deeds for $2.50 or $5 an acre. The rest of them, 
235, are frozen, subject to future legislation.
  But do you know what was in the reconciliation bill? A royalty. My 
staff came in and said, ``Senator So and So has put a royalty in the 
reconciliation bill--5 percent.'' Really? We started looking at it, and 
it is 5 percent of nothing after taking into account the deductions. 
When you look at the reconciliation bill and you see that whooping big 
5 percent royalty, and you say 5 percent of what? and you start seeing 
what you will deduct before you levy a royalty, there is nothing left 
to levy a royalty on. What is worse, what is even more cynical, is 
every one of the 608 applications for patents would be exempt from the 
royalty forever. That is billions of dollars' worth of minerals. Who 
else is exempt? The 330,000 claims that are in existence.
  So you cannot tax the lands for which patents have been applied and 
you cannot tax any future claims on any applications for patent on the 
330,000 claims that are still existing. What do you wind up with? Less 
than $1 million per year. People say, ``I wonder why President Clinton 
vetoed that reconciliation bill.'' That was only one reason.
  Mr. President, I am still grateful to the House even though we had to 
grandfather the 373 patent applications and will likely never get a 
dime out of it. It is a step in the right direction.

  So, Mr. President, let me cover one other point. I have never 
understood why hard rock minerals get this exemption. We do not give it 
to anybody else.
  When I first became involved in this issue, I could not believe it 
was as egregious as it turned out to be. It turned out to be much worse 
than I thought at first. At the time, people believed that somehow or 
other if you rubbed a quartz crystal a certain way it would cure your 
warts and whatever else ails 

[[Page S18605]]
you. I did not know about it. But everybody else in America seemed to 
know that these quartz crystals, people were being told, had healing 
powers.
  Do you know where the biggest quartz crystal deposit in the United 
States is? It is in the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. People 
were down there with picks and shovels tearing the forest up.
  I went to Senator McClure, who was at that time vitally interested in 
the subject. I said, ``Do you mind if I pass a bill eliminating quartz 
crystals from the 1872 mining law?'' He said, ``No, I don't care.'' So 
I did, and in about a week's time. That is the fastest I have ever 
gotten anything done here since I have been here.
  Every year we get a few thousand dollars in Arkansas as a royalty. I 
forget how much we charge on this. But we get a royalty on all of the 
quartz crystals taken off, and it goes to the Federal Treasury. I take 
full credit for that. If I could have gotten this whole thing taken 
care of by then we would not have nearly as much trouble today 
balancing the budget as we have.
  Why do we charge coal miners 12\1/2\ percent for all the coal they 
mine off Federal lands? And if you go underground to mine coal on 
Federal lands, you have to pay an 8 percent royalty. If you take 
natural gas off Federal lands, you pay a 12\1/2\ percent royalty. And 
if you take oil off Federal lands, you pay a 12\1/2\ percent royalty. 
But, if you take gold, silver, or platinum, or any other hardrock 
mineral, you pay nothing.
  If I were the oil industry, I would be up in arms about this because 
when they go out and drill an oil well they do not know whether they 
are going to hit anything or not.
  Mr. President, I come to the end of this little speech saying I am 
going to vote against the bill even though I must confess the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, who I know had a very 
difficult time, did a tremendous job. I tried to pass an amendment in 
the conference 2 days ago to put a 1.5 percent royalty on mining on 
Federal lands and to give half of the money to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. Many of the western Senators, who have a lot of Indians in 
their States, have convinced me that the Indians are really getting 
savaged under this balanced budget thing. Even the President has 
allowed that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is getting shortchanged. I 
thought a 1.5 percent royalty on this with half of it going to the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs might attract some people who have shed tears 
on this floor about the plight of the poor native Americans--not one 
Republican vote; 8 to 6 on a straight party-line vote.
  What else is in this bill? I wanted to give the BLM 10 years to 
process the 373 patent applications that were grandfathered by bill. 
However, the Republicans--particularly the western Senators--were not 
having any of that.
  Let me tell you something, Mr. President. If we have 373 claims that 
the first half certificate has been issued on, and this bill says that 
the BLM will process those claims within 5 years, do you know what that 
means? That means that about 75 claims a year will have to be 
processed. Do you know what else it means, Mr. President? That is an 
abject utter impossibility. Do you know the highest number of 
applications that have ever been processed in the history of the world 
in the BLM? Thirty-eight. Do you know who the Secretary of Interior 
was? James Watt. The man the environmentalists loved to hate more than 
anybody else.
  Do you know what the average has been over the past 10 years? Mr. 
President, 25.7 claims a year.
  So why do we have a provision in here saying you have to do 75 a 
year? It is utterly impossible. Why do we do that? I will tell you why 
they want to do it. Because, if there is ever a change in the makeup of 
this body, this nonsense is coming to a halt, and they want to get 
their deed before that happens. That is exactly why they want it all 
done in 5 years.
  I offered an amendment to say why do not we at least make these 
mining companies, who are worth billions, pay the charges the 
Government incurs to process their application, which is $250 an acre? 
If you are going to give them a deed for $5 an acre, surely they would 
be charitable enough to pay $250 to the taxpayers that they are putting 
out--8 to 6 vote; the same thing.
  Mr. President, I do not know how it will all turn out. But I can tell 
you one thing. The Bureau of Land Management will not, and cannot, 
process 75 claims a year when the 10-year average has been 25.7 claims.
  Mr. President, there has been an awful lot written and said about 
lobby reform. The ethics manual of the U.S. Senate just gets thicker 
and thicker. The first thing you know you will not be able to drive 
home. You will have to take a bus at the rate we deal with that around 
here. I do not have any quarrel with that. I do not care what the 
ethics requirements of this body are as long as I know what they are. 
That is all most Senators ask for. I do not care whether the value of 
the gift can be zero, $20, or $100 as long as I know and understand the 
rules that we are supposed to live by. But having said that, that is 
not the problem. The problem is the money that flows into campaigns. 
You tell me I cannot allow a lobbyist to buy my lunch but he can hand 
me a $5,000 check at lunch? What kind of palpable nonsense is that?
  I am telling you, campaign financing is what drives this body. That 
is one of the reasons we have not been able to deal with the reform of 
the 1872 mining law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Arkansas for one incidental admission during this long speech which he 
has given on the floor on mining patent claims, and that admission was 
that is not a part of this bill. It is a subject that is not entrusted 
to the subcommittee which I chair, or to a debate over this bill. In 
fact, it is a subject that is entrusted to a committee on which the 
Senator from Arkansas serves, in which he was on this subcommittee in 
the last Congress, when the political composition of this body was 
different than it is now, and when no bill on mining claims or patents 
appeared or was debated on this floor.
  But I think I particularly regret, in connection with the remarks of 
the Senator from Arkansas, his statement that he intends to vote 
against the bill. As I reported earlier, this bill was passed by the 
Senate earlier this year in its original form by a vote of 92 to 6. The 
Senator from Arkansas voted for it. The mining patent provisions were 
less favorable to his position then than they are now.
  He has pointed out that the House moratorium on new claims, which was 
not included in the Senate bill, is now found in this bill with the 
sole exception of those claims which Congress cannot constitutionally 
terminate without compensating the claimants under the fifth amendment. 
The only claims that will be processed are those so-called 
grandfathered claims, and someday, whether it is 2 years or 5 years or 
10 years, they will all be disposed of. At that point, unless the 
Congress passes a significant reform in its mining patent laws, there 
will not be any new claims subject to these provisions.
  So I hope the Senator from Arkansas will reconsider and will support 
a bill which does not move as far in his direction as he would like but 
which does move further in the direction of the policies he advocates 
than did the bill he voted for just a few months ago.
  That, I think, illustrates a larger point. Whatever the merits of the 
argument of the Senator from Arkansas, and, obviously, to toss about 
figures in the tens of billions of dollars as if this were the 
potential profits in mining--it would be overwhelmingly the most 
profitable business in the United States--of those billions of dollars, 
something between 90 and 99 percent, of course, will be paid to the 
people who work to separate these minerals from the ground in which 
they are found, which is a very expensive proposition.

  While I am far from being an expert in this business, I do not find 
it to be a business in the United States which operates at a profit any 
larger than any other business. Its costs are high. Those costs are, 
generally speaking, paid out in the form of wages to people who are 
citizens of the United States. And that, of course, is the reason that 
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from States in 
which these mineral deposits are located favor the continuation of a 
policy which at least sees to it that there is 

[[Page S18606]]
some mining industry in the United States, declining though it may be.
  Personally, I think we ought to reform these laws in such fashion 
that the people of the United States do reap some portion of the profit 
from minerals taken from their lands. But many feel that if we adopted 
the position of the Senator from Arkansas, there simply would not be 
any mining so there would be no value, no profit, and no jobs, no 
nothing. That is an appropriate debate, and it is appropriate for the 
Senator from Arkansas to state his position, just as it would be for 
the now Presiding Officer to state his, representing a State with many 
mines, but it is not a debate we are having here today. It has 
practically nothing to do with an appropriations bill for the 
Department of the Interior.
  So I wish to pass on to other comments which have been made during 
the course of this debate since I last spoke, that do relate directly 
to this bill. In that connection, with neither the Senator from Arizona 
nor the Senator from Nevada being here, I would like to share one of 
the interesting paradoxes, sometimes frustrations, of dealing with a 
bill of this sort.
  My friend and colleague from Arizona objected that there are items in 
this bill which have not been subject to debate in authorizing 
committees, that are unauthorized expenditures, or expenditures for 
unauthorized matters. My friend, the Senator from Nevada, objected to 
the fact that there is a moratorium on listings under the Endangered 
Species Act when no such appropriations are authorized. Authorizations 
for the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act ran out several years 
ago. Technically speaking, any money appropriated to enforce the 
Endangered Species Act is subject to a point of order on the floor here 
because the act has not been reauthorized.
  The Senator from Nevada is the ranking minority member of the very 
subcommittee that deals with that subject, and the moratorium expires, 
by its own terms, on the day that the act is reauthorized. So he has 
it, at least partly, in his power to see to it that moratorium is 
terminated.
  There is a serious group of Senators--not a majority but a 
significant group of Senators, as there are Members of the House --who 
do not believe that we should appropriate for any unauthorized project 
at all. I think the senior Senator from Arizona falls into that 
category, both by the remarks he made here somewhat earlier and by 
other quite similar questions that he has raised about new items being 
included in conference committee reports that were not included in the 
bill that passed either the House or the Senate together with 
appropriations for unauthorized projects.
  I think I can say the Senator from Arizona has found fewer questions 
to ask in that connection of this Senator than he has of any other who 
is managing an appropriations bill on this floor, and I believe that I 
now have answers, which I will state for the Record and for him or for 
his staff, if they are listening, and which I hope will satisfy each 
one of the questions that he has raised.

  He raised questions concerning amendments Nos. 2, 47, 84, 101, and 
104, dealt with in the conference committee report.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 47 go together. The House appropriations bill 
on this subject appropriated $87 million for the complete termination 
of the Bureau of Mines as one of those entities which, according to the 
House, was simply to be ended. The Senate did not agree with that 
position and appropriated considerably more, $128 million, for the 
continued operation of the Bureau of Mines and nine of its field 
facilities. That is a big difference between the two bills.
  The conference committee came up with a compromise that will close at 
least five of those Bureau of Mines facilities, but it will transfer 
some of the functions for which there was strong support in the U.S. 
Senate to various other entities around the country. Those functions 
the Senate wished to preserve, and continues to preserve as a result of 
this conference committee, include health and safety research, minerals 
information, materials research, and minerals assessments on public 
lands in Alaska.
  As a consequence, in reaching this compromise we had to outline 
exactly what was going to happen to various facilities and to various 
functions, and that is what we did. It is not new material. These are 
functions and facilities which would have been dealt with in one way in 
the original House bill, a different way in the original Senate bill. 
The compromise requires them to be listed.
  The $2 million for particular assessments in Alaska, about which the 
Senator raised a question, is money that would have been included in 
the normal operation of the Bureau of Mines under the Senate bill which 
continued it, but has to be stated separately in order to be continued 
as various facilities in the Bureau of Mines are closed.
  A similar question was raised by the Senator from Arizona in 
connection with amendments 101 and 104 with respect to Forest Service 
functions and facilities.
  For a number of years, the Interior Subcommittee has required 
approval of boundary changes in national forests, the abolition of 
regional offices or the movement or closure of Forest Service offices. 
Both the Appropriations Committees in the two Houses and the 
authorizing committees have had to be notified and had to approve of 
such changes.
  In this particular connection, there is such a proposed change. 
During the course of the conference committee, the Forest Service asked 
for the move which is referred to here. That move and some of its 
conditions are outlined in the bill as a result of the historic 
practice of the Appropriations Committee and the desire of the Forest 
Service itself.
  Finally, by far the most significant amendment, about which a 
question was raised by the Senator from Arizona, has to do with the 
Presidio. The Senator points out that the Presidio, as a military 
reservation, has been closed under the Base Closure Commission 
activities, and he asks, essentially, why it is that we are 
appropriating money for a closed military facility.
  The answer, of course, is that whatever the merits and the beauty of 
Williams Air Force Base in the State of Arizona, the Presidio in San 
Francisco is a totally, completely unique national asset, a magnificent 
open space in one of America's largest and most famous cities.
  So some years ago, before I became chairman of this subcommittee, it 
was determined that the Presidio, when it was to be closed as a 
military base, would become, in large measure, a national park. And the 
appropriation in this bill is for the operation of the Presidio as a 
national park.
  I may say, Mr. President, that I have been bothered by this, at one 
level at least. The Presidio is the most expensive single national park 
in the National Park System as a result of these transfers.
  So what has happened as a result of the fiscal pressure on the 
National Park System in running the Presidio is that a group of 
citizens in the city of San Francisco have gotten together and have 
proposed a Presidio trust to be created by the Congress. It has not 
been created by the Congress yet. The authorizing committee has not 
completed its work on it. The Senate has not debated it.
  So this conference committee report says, ``Well, we are 
appropriating money now directly to the National Park Service.'' We 
will have to help the Presidio trust with appropriations for at least a 
number of years until they have transferred this into a purely local 
facility. So we are going to limit the amount of money that the 
National Park Service can spend out of our appropriations to one-
twelfth of the appropriation for each month, with the hope that the 
trust will succeed the Park Service sometime during the course of this 
fiscal year.
  But the appropriation for the Presidio is because it is, in fact, a 
part of Golden Gate National Park and is something which the people of 
the United States have determined is appropriate to maintain.
  The Senator from Arizona also objected to the amount of money 
appropriated for various native American purposes, particularly to the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, noting, however, that it is larger by more 
than $100 million in this bill than it was in the bill that originally 
passed the Senate.
  I simply want to emphasize today, Mr. President, what I emphasized at 


[[Page S18607]]
the time of the original debate. The reductions for Indian activities 
in this bill are lower than the reductions for any other major purpose 
covered by this bill. They are lower in the reductions than for any 
other purpose in this bill.
  As I said in my opening remarks, in order to attempt to balance the 
budget, we have $1.4 billion less for 1996 than we had for 1995. This 
means less money for our national endowments, for our museums, for our 
land management activities, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the National Park Service, the Department of Energy's 
nonnuclear research activities--right across the board.
  The reductions for Indian activities are sharply less than the 10-
percent average reductions for everything else, which means, of course, 
that the reductions for everything else are greater.
  I must confess, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona and I 
have a certain philosophical difference as to whether there is 
literally an obligation in perpetuity for the taxpayers of the United 
States to pay for activities, local governmental activities which 
everyone else in the United States pays for out of their own revenues, 
for the operation of tribal governments, for police services, and the 
like.
  I am a strong believer in self-determination, but I think at some 
point at least, the self-determination carries with it an obligation or 
duty of self-support, and we should be at least moving in that 
direction.
  That, however, is not the philosophy behind this appropriations bill. 
This appropriations bill makes a modest but real contribution toward 
the overriding necessity in this country of balancing the budget of the 
United States, of ceasing the practice of spending money we do not have 
and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. As a 
consequence, all of the activities within the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee have less money for 1996 than they had for 1995.
  Mr. President, they will have less money next year than they have 
this year if we do not also reform the huge entitlement programs which 
grow far more rapidly than our economy does. There is a relationship 
between these two.
  In that connection, Indian activities are taking a smaller and more 
modest hit than, for all practical purposes, every other activity in 
this bill.
  My own No. 1 priority was to try to see to it that we protected our 
National Park System, which is an asset for every person in the United 
States, and the cultural institutions here in Washington, DC, for which 
we have either the sole or primary responsibility, like the National 
Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, and the like. I think we 
have done so reasonably well.

  So I terminate these remarks with the views that I expressed earlier. 
I remind my colleagues that this bill was passed overwhelmingly by this 
body by a vote of 92 to 6, and I point out at the same time that the 
objections of a handful of Members who voted against it last time and 
the reluctant assent of some of those who voted for it have to at least 
have modestly been met.
  I am sorry at this point we do not have the approval of the White 
House. It is impossible to meet the conditions the White House has laid 
out. The White House just wants to spend more money, as the Senator 
from Missouri said in respect to his appropriations money. They want to 
spend money on everything. They want to borrow it. They do not want to 
pay for it themselves, but they want to spend it, and that is not going 
to happen. It is not going to happen now; it is not going to happen 
later. In fact, the defeat or veto of this bill will sentence the money 
funded by it to less money than they have in this bill, because the 
continuing resolution, under which we are operating today, has less 
money for most of these activities than does this bill.
  So we hope that we can persuade the Executive to approve this bill to 
get it out of the battle of the overall budget. I hope my colleagues 
will provide very strong support for it, because I am convinced that we 
have done a responsible and a balanced job under very, very difficult 
circumstances.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes under the time 
allocated to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to say I am glad this conference 
report has finally made it to the Senate floor. I know the senior 
Senator from Washington, Chairman Gorton, has worked very hard to get 
it to this stage. I also wish to thank Senator Byrd and his staff for 
their assistance in keeping me informed and helping to move the process 
forward.
  My primary concern with this conference report is its authorizing 
language regarding the Columbia Basin ecosystem project. This important 
project was instituted by former Speaker Tom Foley and Chairman 
Hatfield to provide a scientific foundation to guide us in developing 
sound resource policies, especially regarding fisheries management. In 
many areas of the Columbia Basin region, our forests are dying due to 
past timber harvest practices, fire suppression policies, and insect 
infestation. Our salmon and other fisheries resources are endangered, 
due in part to land-based activities that impact watersheds, like 
cattle grazing, forestry, recreation, and development.
  Unfortunately, this conference report intentionally limits science. 
It demands that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management study 
only ``landscape dynamics and conditions for forest and rangeland 
management, specifically the management of forest and rangeland 
vegetation structure, composition, density, and related social and 
economic effects.'' It goes on to say the scientific assessment must 
not contain any other material than that quoted above.
  During the second conference, I was unable to convince my colleagues 
to add a provision allowing for the study of fisheries and watersheds 
and deleting the clause limiting study. I truly believed my colleagues 
would support this moderate attempt to allow scientists to provide us 
information to help guide us in making scientifically based resource 
management decisions.
  In this latest round of conference negotiations, Chairman Gorton, 
too, tried to convince the House to open up the scientific assessment 
for fisheries and watershed studies. I want to thank him for his 
efforts, which were unfortunately unsuccessful.
  Mr. President, the amendment I had offered only addressed one area of 
concern for me in this bill regarding the Columbia Basin project: that 
of limiting science. However, I am also very concerned that this report 
prohibits the agencies from issuing a final environmental impact 
statement or a record of decision and from selecting a preferred 
alternative in the draft environmental impact statement.
  This bill also limits the ability of the Forest Service and BLM to 
consult or conference as required under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act. The agencies may modify current policies for fish 
protection and if they have consulted on these policies in the past, 
they need not do so again--even if the amendment is a drastic 
modification of current protections. Similarly, the agencies are 
prohibited from consultation for any projects, such as timber sales, if 
sales are based on the forest plan amendment.
  The President has indicated that he intends to veto this bill. One of 
his reasons for doing so is the authorizing language on the Columbia 
Basin project. I look forward to working with him and Chairman Gorton 
to make the necessary improvements in this language so that we can 
practice ecosystem-based stewardship and provide a steady stream of 
commodities while also protecting our resources for this and future 
generations.
  Let me also add that while I have focused the majority of my remarks 
on the Columbia Basin project, I am also concerned with several other 
provisions included in this bill. For example, while an additional $50 
million were made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian 
Health Service during the last conference, the level of funding for 
these programs is still woefully inadequate.
  The cuts to tribal priority allocations are particularly disturbing. 
Tribal priority allocations represent an important component of Federal 
Indian policy. In addition to recognizing the 

[[Page S18608]]
reduction in bureaucracy that self-governance allows and the shifting 
of decisionmaking from the Federal to the local level, TPA funds also 
represent a fundamental recognition of tribal sovereignty. I think it 
is important that the Federal Government recognize that Indian nations 
have the capacity, the responsibility, and the right to govern 
themselves. The Federal Government must also remember its historic 
obligations to the Indian nations as set out in the many treaties 
signed by the United States and the sovereign tribes.
  Furthermore, I continue to oppose the language preventing Washington 
State tribes, specifically the Lummi Nation, from exercising their 
water rights. While I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Gorton to 
remove language that would likely have derailed the ongoing 
negotiations--negotiations, I might add, that include all affected 
parties including the non-Indian landholders and appear to be going 
well--the language still represents a threat to tribal sovereignty and 
sets an extremely poor precedent for government-to-government 
relations.
  Mr. President, to close, I would like to note quickly my concerns 
about several other provisions contained in this bill, including: 
First, the severe funding cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities; second, the attempts by 
this Congress to thwart scientific protocol regarding the methods used 
to identify the threatened marbled murrelet's nests; and third, the 
provisions related to the Tongass National Forest.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Gorton for the many improvements he 
has made in this report. I encourage him to continue those efforts 
should the President veto this appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many Vermonters are disappointed about a 
pattern in this Congress to undermine environmental standards through 
appropriations and the budget process.
  Unfortunately, Congress is doing it again in the Interior bill.
  Let me list just a few of the measures that were added to this bill 
which are direct attacks on the environment using the indirect 
appropriations process. These are items which have not received 
hearings, authorizing committee deliberation, or open floor debate.
  First, a group of Alaskans asked the Forest Service to update the 
environmental study for a large timber sale which was being reoffered 
for a second time. The judge agreed with the Alaskans that an updated 
study would be worthwhile. This Congress overrules the judge.
  Second, the Forest Service has been working on a forest plan for the 
Tongass National Forest for several years amidst annual meddling from 
the Appropriations Committee and Congress. In this bill, Congress 
dictates its choice for forest management, and forces it upon the 
resource professionals and people of the region.
  Third, our country has an Endangered Species Act to protect our 
Nation's fish and wildlife from extinction. This bill prohibits the 
Fish and Wildlife Service from listing species as endangered species. 
We can change our minds about this bill, but we cannot change our minds 
after extinction.
  Fourth, last year, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to create the 
California Desert National Park by a wide margin. One year later, 
Congress is trying to dismantle the National Park through funding 
gimmicks.
  Fifth, our country's mining law is 123 years old. This Congress 
refuses to update the law through the authorizing process, and instead 
tries to force as many giveaways through the Department of the Interior 
as they can. They know the American people want changes, but they are 
scrambling to get what they can while they hold back the will of the 
American people.
  Sixth, this Administration has an excellent record of creating new 
jobs while protecting the environment, including endangered species. To 
continue this record of cutting through gridlock, finding flexible 
solutions, and moving forward, the Administration was studying the 
Columbia River Basin. This bill says ``ignorance is bliss,'' and cuts 
funding for science.
  There are other problems with the bill as well, some with legislative 
issues, and some with funding.
  One provision has to do with the National Endowment for the Arts. The 
Supreme Court has an established standard to judge pornography. This 
bill, however, includes a vague new definition based on the personal 
opinion of what a few members consider disgusting.
  One of the most blatant funding problems is the energy cuts. The 
President's budget promotes national security, economic progress, and 
environmental responsibility by supporting voluntary incentives for 
energy efficiency. This bill cuts energy efficiency funding by 38 
percent, including critical programs like weatherization. 
Weatherization was cut by 50 percent. Vice President Gore pointed out 
that with the President's budget we could save more energy than could 
be drilled from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  The pattern is clear and persistent. Environmental funding and 
environmental laws are the first to go. Our natural resources cannot 
endure this kind of abuse. Pollution, extinction, degradation, and 
abuse are not problems that we can easily fix, if at all.
  The American people do not want this, and soon Congress will learn 
about their opposition. But until then, and propelled by this bill, the 
abuse and neglect continues.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken time and time again about 
the cuts in this Republican budget to low-income heating, energy, and 
weatherization assistance programs that help the most needy in our 
country. Throughout this year we have seen horrible heat waves and 
horrible cold snaps. Many citizens of our Nation have become ill and 
some have even died from the heat and the cold. Yet, still we cut those 
programs. In the Interior Appropriations bill, energy conservation 
programs are funded at a level that is only 60 percent the President's 
request and only 73 percent of last year's funding level. That is just 
plain foolish.
  Mr. President, I have also spoken time and time again about how this 
Republican budget gives away our natural resources without measuring 
long-term budget consideration and without designing a long-term energy 
policy. Still, despite new information, numbers that just don't add up 
and many unexplored environmental concerns, the Republican budget still 
contains provisions to open up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, to give 
oil companies royalty relief for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
pages and pages of other provisions that just don't make sense.
  This is not energy policy, this is not environmental policy. This is 
short-term gain without consideration of long-term loss and a jumbled-
up mass of contradictions. It just don't make any sense.
  Mr. President, why say that our country needs more oil and needs to 
rely less on foreign supply and then turn around and allow Alaska North 
Slope oil to be sold to foreign countries. Does that make sense? We 
need more oil, but we can sell some anyway?
  Mr. President, why say that our country needs more oil and needs to 
rely less on foreign supply and then turn around and slash funding for 
the Weatherization Assistance Program and other conservation programs. 
We need more oil, but we can afford to waste some?
  Why say that our country needs more oil but not consider ways that we 
could save oil, by beginning discussions on a long-term energy policy 
that will benefit every citizen of this nation, not just the oil 
companies. We need more oil, but lets not worry about how we use it?
  Mr. President, this is all just smoke and mirrors. This country needs 
a long-term energy policy and this country needs to have policies and 
budgets that are not a mass of contradictions. Our natural resources 
are the last thing we should play with. I will be voting against this 
bill.


                externally fired combined cycle funding

  Mr. COHEN. Senator Snowe and I would like to bring to the attention 
of the chairman an important Fossil Energy Program within the 
Department of Energy. The Department has initiated a demonstration 
project to repower Pennsylvania Electric's Warren Station utilizing 
externally fired combined cycle technology. The purpose of this program 
is to develop a commercially viable use for this technology. A 20-
member consortium, consisting of utilities, private industry, 

[[Page S18609]]
State energy organization, foreign organizations, and the Department's 
Morgantown Energy Technology Center, has spent 8 years and $34 million 
to develop the EFCC technology.
  This technology is based on a ceramic heat exchanger that can 
dramatically increase the amount of electricity generated from burning 
coal. This ceramic technology produces 20 percent more electricity per 
pound of coal than conventional steam power plants and, as a result, it 
can significantly reduce pollution and the cost of power. It could be 
used to update aging power plants across the United States. According 
to the Washington Post, this technology ``appears to place the United 
States in the forefront in developing high-temperature ceramics'' for 
industrial applications, overtaking international competitors.
  Ms. SNOWE. Earlier this year, the Department provided funding to 
begin testing the technology, which is critical to demonstrate the 
commercial viability of the project. However, $4.3 million is now 
needed to complete these tests, which are currently suspended until 
further funding becomes available. Consortium members expect the 
program to be commercially viable after completion of the testing. I 
understand that in addition to coal, the heat exchange technology could 
be applicable to other types of power production, such as bioenergy.
  While some private money has been located to continue the tests, 
funding from the Department is necessary to restart the testing. If the 
testing cannot be completed, the $26.5 million already provided by the 
Federal Government and the $7.5 million contributed by the Consortium 
will have been wasted.
  Senator Cohen and I understand that the chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee shares our interest in this project and believes that the 
Department should make an effort, within its budget constraints, to try 
to ensure that the testing is completed.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senators from Maine are correct. This promising 
technology could be very beneficial to improving electricity generation 
in this country.
  Mr. COHEN. We thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance on 
this important matter.


                      twin cities research center

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, thank the managers of the bill for 
their help in providing the Twin Cities Research Center [TCRC] a smooth 
transition from Bureau of Mines facility to non-Federal entity. The 
Minnesota congressional delegation and the TCRC have been working to 
facilitate this transition, and would like to ask the chairman about 
the following scenario.
  The TCRC would be able to continue operations within the Department 
of the Interior until June 30, 1996 or until such time as a transfer of 
the facility to a university or government entity is completed, 
whichever is sooner. The responsibility for identifying funds to 
maintain such operations would lie with the TCRC and/or the partners 
interested in seeing this facility remain open. To the extent 
authorities exist for the Department of the Interior to accept 
donations or contributions that might be offered to keep the facility 
open, they may be used. If the Department were to identify other funds 
that might be available to assist in this, or similar efforts, they 
would be subject to the normal reprogramming guidelines.
  I would ask the chairman--if the authorities exist that would allow 
funds to be made available for the purposes described, would the 
interested parties be able to consider such a scenario?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator has identified a possible scenario. The 
Department is able to do whatever it can within existing authorities, 
subject to the availability of funds. However, it should be understood 
that any funds to be provided for this purpose must be from new 
agreements. Any funds remaining from prior or existing agreements with 
other parties and the Bureau of Mines are required for shutdown costs. 
The Senator should also understand that to the extent similar scenarios 
may apply at other Bureau facilities, this Senator expects the 
Secretary to give equal consideration to the needs of those facilities 
and the communities in which they are located.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this conference report, 
many aspects of which I find deeply troubling. I am gratified that the 
President has stated that he will veto the conference report. At this 
time, I would like to mention just a few of the most objectionable 
provisions.


                   the mojave national park preserve

  The provisions in this bill on the Mojave National Park Preserve are 
an affront to the people of California and to the intent of Congress 
which was clearly stated when we passed the California Desert 
Protection Act last year. The management of this land as a park 
preserve is supported by 84 percent of Californians. Every major 
newspaper in the State, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Los 
Angeles Times, San Diego Union Tribune, and San Bernadino Sun has 
voiced its support for the preserve and its strong opposition to 
efforts to strangle the preserve out of existance.
  I find this situation strange, in that it appears that there was only 
one member of the conference who pushed to defund the preserve. The 
previous conference report defunded the preserve and gave the Park 
Service $1 to operate it--clearly just a back door attempt to close one 
of our largest national parks through the appropriations process. To 
add injury to insult, this new conference report has added additional 
restrictions on Park Service management of the new 1.4 million acre 
preserve that would prevent the Park Service from conducting planning 
activities. It imposes a cap on Park Service planning expenditures at a 
fraction of typical planning costs for a new National Park, and imposes 
an unrealistic deadline for completion of a plan which will limit the 
congressionally mandated public involvement in the planning process.
  On these grounds along, Mr. President, this conference report should 
be vetoed.


                   endangered species act moratorium

  This report prohibits adding new species to the endangered species 
list and prohibits designation of critical habitat for listed species. 
It also prohibits the monitoring of listed species which is an 
important part of the recovery process.
  A moratorium will harm our Nation and my State of California. Of the 
more than 100 species currently proposed for listing which would be 
denied protection under this moratorium, more than half are from 
California.
  Mr. President, on average, endangered plant species have fewer than 
120 individuals left by the time they are listed; animal species are 
reduced to fewer than 1,200 individuals by the time of listing--a 6-
month moratorium could see valuable species go extinct for no reason. I 
don't see why should we wait months and months while we lose flora and 
fauna that may cure cancer and alzheimers. Why should we wait while 
species get closer to extinction, creating more complicated and 
expensive problems that will have to be solved when the moratorium is 
lifted? The real agenda here is a piecemeal dismantling of the act. 
This is one more back door move by Republicans to weaken the Endangered 
Species Act in the face of 77 percent of Americans who support 
maintaining or strengthening the Endangered Species Act.


                        tongass national forest

  The Tongass National Forest is the last intact rainforest in North 
America. This conference allows and promotes subsidized logging in 
extremely ecologically sensitive areas.
  The Tongass provisions in the bill are unacceptable. They will 
require that an outdated and scientifically discredited timber 
harvesting can be implemented in the national forest for the next 2 
years. This will result in logging at a a rate that is 100 million 
board feet over the historical average--that is logging at a rate of 
418 million board feet per year. The Forest Service has rejected this 
plan because it allows logging at unsustainable and environmentally 
destructive levels.


                                 mining

  We have been trying to reform the 1872 Mining Law for many years and 
it is difficult to comprehend how year in and year out, the U.S. 
Congress continues to allow our taxpayers to lose thousands of acres of 
Federal lands and billions of dollars in Federal revenue--mostly to 
foreign-owned mining companies. My distinguished colleague Senator 
Bumpers has led the debate in favor of reform for over 7 years, and 

[[Page S18610]]
this morning he again laid out his devastatingly effective critique of 
the moratorium language in this conference report and the sham reform 
that is included in the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
  Since 1872, we have given away more than 3.2 million acres. For how 
much? For the price of $2.50 an acre or at a maximum $5 dollars an 
acre, and not a nickel in royalties. Over $250 billion worth of 
minerals have been taken off that land and the U.S. taxpayer has in 
return received a mining site clean up bill for between $30 and $70 
billion. This conference report will allow it to continue.


                        bureau of indian affairs

  Affairs some funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] has been 
restored, the amount still falls short of the levels needed to maintain 
these important programs. Critically important funding for the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs must be restored, and it must occur without pitting 
these programs against other important Department of Interior programs. 
Additional BIA funds are needed to support essential tribal government 
activities, law enforcement, housing improvement, general assistance, 
Indian child welfare programs, adult vocation training, road 
maintenance, and other basic reservation services. I urge my colleagues 
to pay special attention to this issue.


               interior appropriations conference report

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am voting against the conference 
report on the Interior appropriations bill and I would urge the 
President to veto this bill should it reach his desk.
  This conference agreement is the third attempt by the conferees who 
have been meeting on this bill since September. Despite their difficult 
challenge and tremendous effort, regrettably, it is far from an 
acceptable compromise. I have particular problems with the funding 
level for the Department of Energy's energy conservation programs, the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and numerous objectionable legislative riders.
  Energy conservation, like pollution prevention, makes good business 
and economic sense. It saves production costs and conserves resources 
and it is clearly the best of all energy options. Unfortunately, the 
conferees have funded this important work at a level well below that 
which the President and others have requested, and which is $187 
million below the 1995 enacted level. The $536 million budget is a 26-
percent reduction from the 1995 enacted level and a 38-percent cut from 
the President's request.
  The conference committee added numerous legislative riders to the 
bill that have serious policy implications, yet these were added 
without the benefit of congressional hearings or public input.
  One of the most egregious riders would set in stone the current 
Tongass Forest management plan for an additional 2 years, thus 
prohibiting an update to the unsustainable timber sale levels it 
mandates. Additional riders would prove harmful to the environment by 
placing a moratorium on future listings and critical habitat 
designations under the Endangered Species Act.
  Another provision would require wasting energy by preventing the 
Department of Energy's implementation of new energy efficiency 
standards for an additional year.
  The ideological fervor of the Republicans who now control the 
Congress has manifest itself in heavy cuts to the National Endowment 
for the Arts and the National endowment for the Humanities.
  It is my hope that the President will veto this bill so that the 
conferees can work toward a package that provides sufficient funding 
for environmentally beneficial programs and strips the environmentally 
harmful legislative riders.
  We can and must do better than this. We must not and the President 
will not capitulate to the tactic of the Republicans who now control 
the Congress to hold hostage the funding for our national parks and 
public lands until they are permitted to abolish or emasculate vital 
environmental protections that have withstood previous head-on 
challenges.
  I hope, after this bill is vetoed, the Congress will get down to 
serious, good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable interior 
appropriations bill which can be passed with broad support and signed 
into law.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Acting for the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the 
vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1977, 
the Interior appropriations bill, occur at the hour of 2 p.m. today. I 
further ask that at 3 p.m., the Senate turn to S. 908. It is my 
understanding this has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I delete the last request with regard to 
S. 908, and I ask unanimous consent that it be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The vote on the pending legislation then is set at 2 p.m. this 
afternoon.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. At 2 p.m., we will vote on the pending 
conference report.
  Mr. President, with the consent of the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I yield myself such time as I need to 
comment on this report.
  Mr. President, I first want to start off by commending my good friend 
from Washington, my southern neighbor. I think Senator Gorton's task 
has been a very difficult one this year. As he stated, he has had a 
substantial reduction in the amount of money available to him. He has 
done a fantastic job. There are areas here where we have serious 
concern. I think anyone in the Senate has serious concerns over areas 
that affect their States directly. All of the agencies in the 
Department of Interior have substantial impact on Alaska, and we know 
that funding is being restrictive. There is a general decline now in 
the amount of taxpayers' funds available to run these entities, and I 
view that with great regret.

  However, I also know that we are committed to a balanced budget, and 
some of these steps have to be taken so we can eliminate the constant 
growth of interest on the national debt. That interest now, this next 
year will be larger than the amount of money that is available to spend 
for the national defense of this country.
  I do manage that defense bill, and I am appalled we are spending more 
money next year on interest than we will spend on the defense of our 
country, but there is no alternative but to pay the interest on the 
debt that is due. That is why we are laboring so hard to try and find a 
way to reverse that trend and hopefully reach the day when the interest 
starts coming down, when we can start making funds available to these 
very necessary functions such as those of the Department of Interior.
  I am particularly concerned right now about the comments that have 
been made by the Senator from Arizona concerning the money that is 
earmarked here for the Bureau of Land Management to do mineral 
assessments that were formerly done by the Bureau of Mines. The 
situation that we had, Mr. President, was this: When this bill was 
before the Senate, the Senate did not zero out the Bureau of Mines.
  The House bill did mandate the closure of the Bureau of Mines. When 
we got to conference and realized that the funding was so limited, we 
had to take action suggested by the House--action I really regret. The 
Bureau of Mines has been a very vital function for the Federal 
Government, but it has been agreed now to close that Bureau.
  I pointed out to the conferees that under section 1010 of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act--we call that ANILCA, an act 
passed by the Congress in 1980--over 100 million acres of Alaska lands 
were set side. Congress recognized that there had to be an assessment 
of lands that were to be patented to the State and Federal governments, 
and an assessment of these lands were set aside to the extent possible. 
That is required, as I said, under section 1010 of the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Act.
  We have requested that this money be earmarked so that the people who 
formerly worked for the Bureau of Mines and were performing the 
assessments required by law that have to be made prior to the transfer 
of lands, 

[[Page S18611]]
that they will be made under the direction of the Bureau of Land 
Management, which does in fact have the authority over the lands. This 
was not behind closed doors. We had a provision in the Senate bill, had 
we maintained it, that all of the people performing Bureau of Mines 
functions in Alaska would remain on the payroll. What we have done is 
maintained the funds for the absolutely essential minimum requirement 
of the law, which is to do these mineral assessments formerly under the 
Bureau of Mines, which will be done under the Bureau of Land Management 
until the job is completed.
  I believe that that is a necessary function of the conference 
committee. Having acceded to the House provision, the Senate demanded 
that the minimum function required in my State to be maintained is 
earmarked at $2 million in this bill to continue that. That will be a 
requirement through coming years that we maintain those funds, and I 
intend to do every thing I can to see to it that the Senate will 
maintain that constant.
  Mr. President, there is another very vital matter in this bill that 
pertains to my State, and that is under the administrative provisions 
for the Forest Service, this bill retains language pertaining to the 
Tongass forest in southeastern Alaska. I regret that it is necessary to 
continue doing this. I want the Senate to know that this is not the 
provision that the Senate voted on; this is a provision that has been 
substantially modified in conference.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me claim time under the time reserved 
for those in opposition to the conference report.
  Mr. President, I listened with great interest today to the comments 
by Senator McCain. I find myself in a similar circumstance. I commend 
Senator Gorton and others who have worked on this legislation. I do not 
come here with ill will toward those who have tried to put together a 
compromise. But I do feel very strongly that we find ourselves with 
respect to the appropriations available in some critical areas, dealing 
with some very vulnerable people, short of what is needed. Again, I do 
not intend to be critical of those who have worked on this compromise. 
I understand the competing needs involved, and they reached a different 
conclusion than I might have, a different conclusion than Senator 
McCain said he would have reached. For that reason, he intends to 
oppose the conference report. I am going to oppose the conference 
report for the same reason.
  Let me be more specific. I am very concerned about an area of 
spending dealing with Indian children. That concern stems from a 
substantial amount of observation by me of the Indian reservations in 
North Dakota and elsewhere, from hearings that I have held, from 
stories and concerns that I have related to the Senate previously.
  I have, Mr. President, seen in offices folders containing reports of 
child sexual abuse and physical abuse which were stacked on the floor 
and had not even been investigated because there was not enough money 
to investigate them. We are talking about 3-year-old, 5-year-old, 8-
year-old children who have been victims of alleged physical or sexual 
abuse. The cases had not even been investigated. You may ask why. Well, 
because the people in charge of investigating the reports simply do not 
have the resources. They say, ``These reports are stacked up and we 
have not been able to deal with them. We do not have the capability. We 
are overwhelmed.''
  There are stories that break your heart when you hear them. I have 
told the Senate the story that got me interested in this issue. It is a 
story of a young girl named Tamara DeMaris. Tamara was 3 years old when 
she was placed in a foster home. But the person who placed Tamara in 
her foster home was handling 150 different cases. And with few 
resources and one person handling 150 cases, guess what happened? A 3-
year-old child gets placed in a foster home that turns out to be an 
unsafe home for a 3-year-old. This is a foster home where they have a 
drunken party, and during this drunken party, this little 3-year-old 
child gets beaten up. Her nose is broken, her arm is broken, and her 
hair is pulled out by the roots. This is a 3-year-old child, who is our 
responsibility, who was placed in a foster home, and the result is that 
she is beaten because nobody checked to see whether this was a foster 
home where a young child ought to be placed.
  On that reservation, there are more people now doing the checking to 
see what kind of foster homes are available and whether they are safe 
places to put young people. I am glad that this has happened. It 
happened as a result of my intervention and the intervention of others 
to get additional resources.
  But the experience of this young Tamara DeMaris is not all that 
unusual, regrettably. I will never forget when I met this little girl. 
You look into her eyes and wonder whether the scars from the beating 
will ever go away, and know that the beating occurred because we did 
not make sure that we would have enough resources to provide for her 
protection. Three year olds cannot take care of themselves. It is not 
their fault if they are born into poverty. It is not their fault if 
they are born into a situation where there is no family structure. It 
is not their fault that they are going to be placed in a foster home by 
someone. It is not their fault that someone commits sexual abuse or 
violence against them. But it is our responsibility to try to protect 
those kids.
  We are not doing enough about it. The resources do not exist in this 
piece of legislation to deal with it. We have an Indian boarding school 
in North Dakota. I visited that Indian boarding school about a month or 
two ago and saw the children, many of whom come from very troubled 
backgrounds, and I read some of the letters they had written when they 
came to school. One 13-year-old girl, her dream was a very simple 
thing, that maybe at Christmas, some Christmas, she would be able to 
have a mother and a father and a sister and a brother together to 
celebrate. Of course, in her circumstance, it will not happen. It has 
never happened. It will not happen in the future. That was her dream. 
Very simple. A lot of kids dream for material things, but she wanted a 
home where a mother, father, brother, and sister would be able to spend 
Christmas with her.
  The point I make is that we suffer some very serious, troubling 
problems on Indian reservations with respect to child abuse and with 
respect to poverty, health challenges and other things. This piece of 
legislation, Mr. President, simply does not adequately address those 
issues.
  Mr. President, I remember touring a hospital some while ago and 
holding in my arms a little baby who had been born prematurely. A 
Native American had come to the hospital to give birth. Her blood 
alcohol content when she checked in was 0.23. The baby, upon birth, had 
a blood alcohol content of 0.21. The mother wanted nothing to do with 
the baby. She did not want to see the baby. Think about the 
consequences of this: Someone showing up to deliver a baby with a 0.23 
blood alcohol content and delivering a baby with 0.21 blood alcohol 
content. It is likely the baby will suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome.
  The same hospital showed me just before I was at the nursery the 
space where the carpenters had prepared for a new device. They were, I 
believe, getting an MRI, a device that is breathtaking. It can look 
through the human body to see what is inside. Here, 200 feet apart, is 
an example of the most breathtaking success in health care and the most 
tragic human failure.
  How do we respond to all of these things? How do we deal with them 
all? Some say you cannot throw money at it. I do not disagree with 
that. On the other hand, with respect to children, with respect to 
babies and 3-year-olds and 5-year-olds and 13-year-olds, with respect 
to those kids who are born of circumstances that they did not create, 
we must, it seems to me, in this legislation give them an opportunity, 
give them a fighting chance, deal with their health care needs, provide 
protection to make sure that foster homes are safe.
  We must do that, and I regret to say this legislation simply falls 
too short. I voted for this bill when it left the Senate, hoping that 
maybe when we got to conference we would still have an opportunity to 
work out some approach that would provide enough resources to deal with 
the needs of Indian children. I conclude, having looked at the 
conference report, pretty much the same 

[[Page S18612]]
as the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, has concluded. It simply 
falls short. We have to do better. I hope that, although I intend to 
vote against this conference report, when we approach this funding bill 
again next spring, working in good faith with good people, that those 
who put this kind of legislation together will understand that there 
really is no higher priority for us than to meet our responsibility to 
children. Children cannot take care of themselves. We have certain 
trust responsibilities to meet. In my judgment, we have not met them.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I remind the 
President that it is the holiday season and as the song goes--tis the 
season to be jolly. Unfortunately, my good friend from Arkansas, as he 
described the mining law provisions in the Interior bill, did not 
follow the holiday spirit. I think he may have construed the holiday 
season with the Grinch of Christmas, or something of that nature, but 
clearly his description of the legislation was not in the holiday 
spirit.
  I think it is fair to say that his comments were hardly constructive 
toward enacting mining law reform, and might even be construed to be 
destructive. As the President is aware, today's 6-hour debate on the 
fiscal year 1996 DOI conference report is, in the opinion of the 
Senator from Alaska, a good deal about politics and very little about 
policy. Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle see the 
environment as a political issue and are prepared to do just about 
everything to exploit the issue. Unfortunately, in their effort to win 
political points with the media they are destroying our natural 
resource industries. I think we should look at what has happened. A 
portion of our resource industry and the jobs that go with it are being 
destroyed. We are driving those jobs overseas. We are increasing our 
balance of payment deficit.
  Take for example, the Department of the Interior's attitude toward 
resource development. They oppose it. Mining, coal, oil and gas, 
timber, grazing, all of these resource activities on public lands are 
opposed by this administration. As a result, the administration is 
forcing us to import many of these resources from overseas.
  The greatest portion of our balance of payments deficit, Mr. 
President, is the cost of imported oil. What is the administration 
doing to encourage exploration in areas such as ANWR? In my State of 
Alaska, geologists tell us ANWR is the most likely prospect for a major 
oil discovery. Unfortunately, this administration opposes any 
exploration in this area. As many of you know, my State of Alaska has 
contributed 25 percent of the total domestic crude oil produced in the 
United States for the last 18 years.
  The arguments prevailing in the early 1970's against opening Prudhoe 
Bay are the same arguments prevailing today against opening ANWR. The 
only difference is we have learned how to develop the Arctic in the 
last quarter of a century, and, as a consequence, we can apply advance 
technology to do a better job, making a smaller footprint. That is not 
the policy of this administration. The administration's policy is to 
constrict resource development. Where have all our high-paying blue-
collar jobs gone? They have been exported overseas.
  As I mentioned earlier, today's debate is about politics, not policy. 
I hope that my colleagues will see through this smokescreen.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the DOI conference 
report on its merits. An awful lot of effort and time has gone into the 
bill. Senator Gorton put together a good bill. There were problems with 
the House, but ultimately he put together what I think is an acceptable 
compromise.
  Earlier today, my friend Senator Bumpers talked about the mining law 
provisions in the budget reconciliation package. To hear his view, it 
is a giant sellout of American resources to a few mining companies. I 
want to clear up a few misunderstandings, because you have to recognize 
that this industry provides good-paying jobs which provide a solid tax 
base.
  Looking at the royalty provision under the proposal sent to the 
President, for the first time in history in this legislation, miners 
are required to pay a 5 percent net proceeds royalty. During good 
market conditions, if an operation is making a profit, they pay a 
royalty. During bad market conditions, if an operation is losing money, 
they do not pay a royalty. The significance of the mining industry--it 
is a world competitive market out there--you either compete with South 
America, Brazil, Australia, on a world market price or you do not 
compete at all.
  In other words, Mr. President, we are trying to provide incentives 
for operators to stay in production, to keep our U.S. jobs, these high-
paying union jobs that keep people working and provide a local and 
Federal tax base.
  And I would encourage the unions in this country that are dependent 
in the resource industry to look behind this smokescreen to what this 
administration is really attempting to do with resource development 
jobs--mining of any kind, hard-rock, coal, you name it. They do not 
want anything to happen on public land. This attitude will not create 
jobs.
  Patents--for the first time in history miners would be required to 
pay fair market value for patented land. There would be a reverter for 
the first time in history--that patented land used for nonmining 
purposes reverts back to the Federal Government. So there is no 
speculation. There are no ski resorts built under the idea that you get 
a patent for mining and then use it for something else.
  We protect property rights by allowing the pending patent 
applications at Interior to move forward under the existing law. The 
remaining 330,000 mining claims holders would have to prove that they 
have a ``vested possessory property right.'' If they do not have that 
right, they are subject to the new law.
  For the first time in history, we establish an abandoned mine land 
fund to start the process of cleaning up old abandoned mines. We 
maintain the existing $100 per claim holding fee for 3 years and then 
double the fees to $200 per claim starting in 1999.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office's score over 7 years 
is approximately $157 million. As new mines come into production this 
figure will significantly increase.
  What is the administration's proposal? Mr. President, they have no 
proposal. Secretary Babbitt continues to demand mining law reform, yet 
he offers no solution. The administration has failed to submit a 
proposal to Congress this year.
  In fact, instead of supporting mining law reform legislation, the 
President's budget calls for the elimination of the percentage 
depletion allowance for hard-rock mining--a multi-billion-dollar budget 
bombshell that will cost several billion dollars, and thousands of 
jobs.
  According to the administration, this would save roughly $954 million 
over 10 years--in effect, place a $1 billion-plus burden on the 
Nation's miners. Once again, the White House has singled out the mining 
industry for punishment. Why?
  Its the latest assault in Secretary of Interior Babbitt's and the 
administration's war on the West on hard-working people and their jobs. 
Make no mistake about it, they are singling out the hard-rock mining 
industry for termination.
  Oil, gas, and coal jobs are not put in jeopardy at this time, 
however, the camel's nose is under the tent. It is only a matter of 
time until the administration uses the Tax Code to go after oil, gas, 
and the coal industry.
  Mr. President, the hard-rock mining industry provides 120,000 direct 
and indirect jobs nationwide. This proposal could eliminate 60,000 to 
70,000 of those jobs.
  The administration is using the environment as a political issue. The 
debate is not about policy. It is about politics.
  I urge my colleagues to see through this smokescreen and vote on the 
facts. If we can send a man to the Moon, we can surely develop our 
natural resources and protect our environment.
  On the matter of the Tongass, Mr. President, I commend my good friend 
and senior colleague, Senator Stevens, and those who have worked so 
hard to get approval in the conference.
  The conferees have significantly modified the provision dealing with 
the management of the Tongass National Forest to fully respond to 
administration concerns. In the original amendment, the administration 
objected to: 

[[Page S18613]]
First, sufficiency language; second, the dictate to follow a forest 
plan that the administration believes is superseded by more recent 
information; and third, imposing a permanent ban on the development of 
wildlife habitat conservation areas.
  The new amendment agreed to by the conferees contains none of these 
three requirements. It allows operations on the Tongass National Forest 
to continue under the current Tongass land management plan [TLMP]. 
Further, it directs that revision and amendment of the TLMP continue.
  The new amendment reaffirms the compromise embodied in the 1990 
Tongass Timber Reform Act [TTRA] by requiring that for the next 2 
years, any change to the TLMP shall maintain at least the number of 
suitable available and suitable scheduled acres of timber land and 
allowable sale quantity as that identified in the preferred alternative 
of the October 1992 final TLMP (alternative P). The regional forester, 
at that time, developed alternative P as the best way to manage the 
Tongass National Forest implementing the compromise of the 1990 
legislation. Subsequently, litigation from environmental groups has 
undermined the compromise.
  Unfortunately, the ninth circuit court has ruled that the 1990 act's 
requirement to seek to meet market demand for timber is merely 
hortatory and not binding on the Forest Service as are numerous other 
statutory obligations. More recently, on October 19, Alaska District 
Court Judge, James Singleton, ruled that based upon the ninth circuit's 
reasoning, the balancing mechanisms of the 1990 Act are not a binding 
duty. Rather they are merely a Congressional admonition to be factored 
into the mix of Forest Service goals. Judge Singleton then held that 
``the absence of any enforceable duty'' denies plaintiffs (the State of 
Alaska and the Alaska Forest Association) standing to challenge Forest 
Service decisions, and that plaintiffs will not receive relief ``unless 
congress intervenes in a more forcefully way.''
  The amendment meets this challenge from the courts by imposing a 
nondiscretionary obligation on the Forest Service to maintain a land 
base suitable for timber production and resulting allowable sale 
quantity as indicated in alternative P, thus restoring the 1990 
compromise and establishing a binding duty to maintain the timber land 
base. The Forest Service has flexibility to work within a number of 
administrative land use designations to harmonize this duty with other 
statutory obligations or agency goals.
  The conference agreement makes it clear that any revision, amendment, 
or modification shall be based on the application of the scientific 
method and sound, verifiable scientific data. Data is sound, verifiable 
and scientific only when it is collected and analyzed using the 
scientific method. The scientific method requires the statement of a 
hypothesis capable of proof or disproof, preparation of a study plan 
designed to collect accurate data to test the hypothesis; collection 
and analysis of the data in conformance with the study plan; and 
confirmation, modification or denial of the hypothesis based upon peer-
reviewed analysis of the collected data. That the data used shall be 
from southeast Alaska ecosystem. The current TLMP revision process 
underway does not meet these standards and should be modified in the 2-
year time period provided by this amendment.
  The amendment also includes language to release timber enjoined by 
the ninth circuit court because the Forest Service had not conducted an 
environmental analysis when allowing the transfer of sales from one 
long-term timber contract holder (the Alaska Pulp Corp.) to another 
(Ketchikan Pulp Co.). Previously, Congress passed section 503 of Public 
Law 104-14 which said that the transfer of sales should be authorized, 
notwithstanding the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act [NEPA] and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
[ANILCA].
  The ninth circuit subsequently determined on September 28, that 
section 503 or the rescissions bill did not alter the legal basis for 
the court's original decision. The court stated that section 503 
reflected the ``mistaken view that the dispute involves the changing of 
parties to a contract.'' The court said that, since the alternatives 
described in the environmental impact statement were driven by Alaska 
Pulp Corporation's [APC] contract, NEPA and ANILCA required a new set 
of alternatives in order for the Forest Service to reoffer the timber 
to third parties (because the Forest Service was no longer under an 
obligation to sell the timber to anyone). Accordingly, the ninth 
circuit held that section 503 failed to address the legal significance 
of the termination of APC's contract by focusing solely on the fact 
that the sales were transferred from one party to another.
  By saying that ``the change of purchasers for whatever reason shall 
not be considered a significant new circumstance,'' the amendment in 
this bill makes it clear that, even though the change of purchasers is 
due to the termination of the long term sale, the transfer to third 
parties is covered by the language in the bill. The language says that 
it will not be legally significant no matter what reason the Forest 
Service makes for the transfer.
  I urge the administration to recognize the good faith negotiations 
that resulted in this compromise, and to sign the Interior 
appropriations bill. To do otherwise would be to destroy the small 
kernel of hope that this provision will bring to the people of 
southeast Alaska who live in the forest. Because there is no State 
forest, there is no private land. These people live in the forest--
Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Sitka, Skagway. All of these 
areas are in the forest, and the people living in this area have hopes 
that this legislation will maintain their industry at a modest level.

  Finally, Mr. President, I urge that realism dictate the evaluation of 
these matters by the Department of Interior. They suggest that the 
Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago wolf might be 
endangered as a consequence of logging. It is absolutely without any 
scientific fact of any kind, and is simply a bogus excuse. They have 
already been ruled as not subject to the Endangered Species Act because 
they are not threatened. But they keep bringing this matter up.
  Mr. President, we have a season on wolves. We allow the taking of 
wolves. They are predators. If they were scarce, obviously, that would 
be the first thing to go. But the Secretary of the Interior puts this 
smokescreen up and suggests that the wolves and the timber do not mix, 
and it is absolutely based on no scientific fact.
  Alaskans simply cannot understand it. And the only effort they are 
making in the evaluation of the goshawk is not to find out how many are 
in the forest. They simply look at the next proposed area to be logged 
and use the wolf or the goshawk to block development. There is no 
substantiation to suggest that the goshawk is endangered either.
  But it just drives me crazy to see these false excuses coming out of 
this department that knows better, and they admit they know better. But 
they will use any excuse at any time to address an emotional argument.
  I yield the floor.
  I wish the President a good day.
  I see my good friend from West Virginia seeks recognition. I wish him 
a good day as well.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. He is always 
most generous in his comments concerning other Senators. He has always 
been very kind, and as is his characteristic way, he is always 
cooperative and courteous toward me. I appreciate his friendship. And I 
am glad to have him as my colleague.
  Mr. President, today the Senate is finally able to undertake its 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1977, the FY 1996 
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 
This bill has been to conference on three occasions, as a result of two 
different votes to recommit the conference report by the House. 
However, we now have a product that has passed the House and I hope 
that the Senate will be able to provide its approval expeditiously. For 
the information of Senators, this conference report and accompanying 
statement of the managers appeared in the Congressional Record on 
December 12, 1995, on pages H14288 through H14309.
  The agreements before the Senate today total $12.234 billion in 
budget authority, and $13.210 billion in outlays, 

[[Page S18614]]
as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The Subcommittee has had 
its 602(b) allocation increased by the Full Committee in order to 
provide an additional $50 million for Indian programs, which has been 
an area of concern to numerous Senators, as well as to the 
administration.
  The recommendations of this conference agreement represent a total 
decrease below the amounts provided in fiscal year 1995 of 
approximately $1 billion in budget authority and $822 million in 
outlays. Thus, when all of the various scorekeeping adjustments are 
factored in, this bill is about 8 percent below current levels.
  This conference report reflects the very difficult choices imposed 
upon the Appropriations Committee this year as a result of the 
constrained funding for domestic discretionary spending provided in the 
budget resolution. Nearly every single agency in this bill is funded at 
a level well below the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. Significant 
personnel reductions will result due to various program terminations or 
restructurings recommended in the Interior bill this year. The picture 
might be prettier if we had more money, but we do not have more 
money. Further cuts in domestic discretionary spending contemplated by 
the President in his most recent budget proposal make it likely that 
additional cuts in the outyears for the programs in this bill will be 
necessary. So next year will be slimmer than this year.

  Given the constraints within which conferees had to work, as well as 
the prospects for the future, I believe this conference report reflects 
a balancing of the competing interests found in the Interior bill.
  Now, Senator Gorton has already laid out the details, and laid them 
out well. I wish to extend my strongest commendation to Senator Gorton 
for his leadership on the Interior appropriations bill this year. This 
is his first year as chairman of the subcommittee, and I am going to 
say something about the chairman of the subcommittee that I have never 
said before in my almost 40 years in this body and 44 years on Capitol 
Hill. I am going to say something that I have never heard another 
Senator say about a subcommittee chairman; that is that this 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton, is the best subcommittee 
chairman that this subcommittee has had in at least the last 8 years.
  What am I saying when I say that? I was chairman of the subcommittee 
for 6 years. So what I am saying is that Senator Gorton is a better 
chairman of this subcommittee, has mastered its details more, is better 
prepared, more knowledgeable concerning the bill than I ever was.
  This is a Western Senator's bill, as a matter of fact. I am not a 
Western Senator. Senator Gorton is a Western Senator. But I salute him, 
and I daresay there is not another Senator in this body that I have 
ever heard say that another chairman of the subcommittee has been a 
better chairman than he, the Senator speaking, has been. I say that 
ungrudgingly. And, of course, it has to come from my heart. So I 
congratulate Senator Gorton. I commend him.
  The Bible says, ``Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall 
stand before kings.'' Senator Gorton is diligent in his business, and 
we are fortunate to have him as our chairman.
  Of course, I hope the day will come when I will again be chairman of 
the subcommittee. I look forward to that day. I hope it is not too far 
away. But, in the meantime, my words stand as they have been spoken.
  So he has mastered the complexities of the public lands and other 
issues that confound this bill year after year. He has been most 
considerate of me and of other Senators throughout this appropriations 
process. He cannot do everything for everybody. He cannot do everything 
for anybody. He cannot do everything he would like for himself. But I 
thank him for his courtesies. He has been most deferential and generous 
to me.

  Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will act to support this 
conference report. As I have already said, it is the third conference 
report on the bill. While changes have been made from the earlier 
conferences, the administration continues to voice concerns about some 
of the provisions, particularly the legislative language in the bill, 
and it is possible that the bill will be vetoed. But I hope that the 
administration will think carefully before reaching a decision about 
the fate of this bill.
  The controversial issues will not go away if the bill is vetoed. They 
will not go away. The $50 million increase for Indian programs might be 
taken away. Further restrictions on the Agencies funded in the bill 
might be imposed. So, while the administration may not like everything 
about the bill--and I do not like everything about the bill--while the 
administration may not like everything about the bill, I urge the 
administration to think carefully once, twice, three times, and then 
think again. Think again before issuing a veto. If a veto is issued, I 
hope the administration will be prepared to negotiate constructively. A 
position that the bill is signable only if the language items are 
removed in their entirety is not helpful--or realistic.

  There are many programs which were identified as a priority by the 
administration, but our allocation constrained how far we could go in 
funding all of the programs on their list. Given the environment in 
which we had to work, most programs fared relatively well in this 
conference agreement. It is unclear how some of these activities will 
be treated if funding for the Interior bill agencies is folded into a 
continuing resolution. In addition, this bill begins a responsible 
downward trend, which is absolutely necessary given where domestic 
discretionary spending appears headed in the coming years.
  Mr. President, I would like to highlight some of the items in the 
conference agreement.
  The subcommittee has attempted to protect the operational base of the 
agencies funded in the bill, while at the same time these agencies are 
having to take their share of administrative and personnel reductions. 
In order to protect the operating accounts, more significant reductions 
were taken in the land acquisition and construction accounts.
  Funding for Indian programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior 
Subcommittee is reduced by 4 percent below the FY 1994 level. These 
reductions are taken primarily from the discretionary activities of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in order to protect education and health care 
for Indians, which also fall under the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee. The conference agreement restores $112 million to the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Senate-passed level.
  Total funding in the bill for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
$140 million, a level 40 percent below the FY 1995 amount. No project 
specific earmarks are included for land acquisition. The conferees 
direct the administration to propose projects for consideration, 
subject to the committee's reprogramming guidelines.
  Total funding for construction in the land management agencies is 
reduced by nearly 20 percent below last year's level.
  The National Biological Service is eliminated as an independent 
entity, and the conference agreement folds the natural resource 
research responsibilities of the Interior Department into the 
jurisdiction of the Geological Survey. Efforts have been taken to 
protect, as much as possible, the existing research facilities located 
in various states.
  The Bureau of Mines is terminated, with its health and safety and 
materials partnership functions transferred to the Department of Energy 
and its non-Alaska mineral information responsibilities assigned to the 
Geological Survey. The Alaska minerals activities from the Bureau of 
Mines are transferred to the Bureau of Land Management.
  Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is reduced by about 
$63 million, to a level of $99.5 million. The National Endowment for 
the Humanities is reduced by about $62 million, to a level of 
$110 million. The conferees agreed to disagree regarding future funding 
for these two agencies.

  As usual, Mr. President, the most controversial issues in the 
Interior bill involve legislative proposals. With respect to the most 
significant of these items:
  The bill contains language continuing the moratorium on the issuance 
of mining patents. Provisions are included regarding a schedule for the 


[[Page S18615]]
processing of those patent applications in the pipeline, as well as for 
the use of third parties in the conduct of mineral examinations.
  Legislative language is included regarding the management of the 
Tongass National Forest in Alaska. While management direction is 
specified for the next 2 years, the Forest Service will be able to 
complete the current planning process.
  A moratorium on implementation of certain provisions of the 
Endangered Species Act is imposed until reauthorization of this 
landmark legislation is enacted.
  Language is included which changes the direction provided by Congress 
last fall regarding the management of the California Desert. The latest 
conference agreement allows the National Park Service to engage in a 
comprehensive planning effort during fiscal year 1996, but management 
in the Mojave Preserve remains the responsibility of the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  Legislative language is included which limits the types of grants 
that can be funded using NEA dollars appropriated in this act. The 
language offered to the Senate bill has been modified to address 
concerns regarding potential legal challenges.
  In summary, Mr. President, this conference report is not perfect. It 
is exactly what most conference reports are--a compromise. The House 
did not get everything it wanted, and neither did the Senate. This bill 
makes a significant downpayment toward deficit reduction, while trying 
to balance many competing needs and interests. I urge the Senate to 
adopt this conference report, and I hope the President will give it his 
approval.
  Lastly, I would like to commend the staff who work on this 
appropriations bill. It is not an easy task, in part because of the 
variety of issues involved, and also because of the extreme interest so 
many Senators place on the programs and projects under the jurisdiction 
of the Interior Subcommittee. I wish to thank Senator Gorton's staff: 
Cherie Cooper, Kathleen Wheeler, Bruce Evans, and Ginny James. On my 
staff, Sue Masica handles the Interior bill, and is assisted by Carole 
Geagley. The staff works together as a team, and I think that is 
reflected in the quality of the product presented to the Senate today.
  I thank all Senators and urge adoption of the conference report.
  I yield the floor.


                          INTERIOR PRIORITIES

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly with the 
chairman some of the funding included in this bill. Together we have 
made an effort to eliminate earmarks within the bill. There is no way 
to accommodate the many projects that Senators requested. One way to 
treat every State fairly is to provide no earmarks, and instead set 
programmatic budget priorities.
  I have worked to improve the budget process by focusing on programs 
within the administration's budget rather than add-ons and earmarks. We 
cannot simultaneously address the deficit program and continue to add 
new programs. I have worked with the agencies to craft budgets that 
make sense to the State of Vermont and address national issues that are 
worthy of Federal support.
  In that respect, I wish to clarify my understanding of the budget's 
treatment of several programs and projects that are important to the 
agencies and important to the State of Vermont. At the time the budget 
was presented, the Interior Department provided information to me which 
indicated that the Lake Champlain Basin initiative was continued in the 
budgets of the Geological Survey and the National Park Service at 
approximately the fiscal year 1995 levels--$222,000 and $250,000 
respectively--and that there was approximately $600,000 in the Fish and 
Wildlife Service Budget for these purposes. In addition, the 
Connecticut River Valley ecosystem project was slated to receive 
approximately $1,005,000 in the FWS budget for the Conte Refuge, and 
that the Park Service intended to allocate $250,000 for this effort. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service would also participate in efforts to 
protect the resources of these ecosystems through investments in 
endangered species management and private lands wetlands restoration.
  Mr. President, while no specific earmarks restating what was included 
in the budget were provided in the committee report, I hope the 
chairman would extend his agreement that the agencies should follow 
through on their commitment to continue these initiatives, roughly at 
the levels assumed in the budget. The budget levels were essentially a 
continuation of the prior year level of effort, and my objective is to 
see that the initiatives continue. Obviously, if there were reductions 
in any of the budget line items where these programs are funded, these 
initiatives would have to bear their fair share of any such reductions. 
However, for the most part, under the leadership of the chairman, the 
operating accounts of the land management agencies have been pretty 
well protected, and the agencies should be able to follow through on 
the indications provided by the Department.
  Mr. GORTON. I am aware of the Senator's concern for emphasizing these 
initiatives. What he has presented seems reasonable, and I would expect 
the Department to follow through with roughly the funding levels that 
have been identified.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I join my fellow Senator from Vermont to express my 
interest in these important community efforts in the State of Vermont. 
I am glad that the chairman concurs with our understanding.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senators from Vermont for highlighting these 
concerns. I agree with the chairman. Since the accounts in which these 
initiatives are funded are basically level with the budget request, the 
Department should be able to address these programs consistent with the 
information provided when the budget was submitted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement accompanying H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior and 
related agencies appropriations bill.
  This bill has been a long time coming to the Senate. I commend the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton, for his diligence 
in completing this bill.
  The final bill provides $12.1 billion in budget authority and $8.2 
billion in new outlays to finance the operation of the Department of 
Interior agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, 
the energy conservation and fossil energy programs of the Department of 
Energy, the Smithsonian Institution, and other arts-related agencies. 
Most of the funding in this bill is for nondefense discretionary 
programs.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the final bill totals $12.3 billion in 
budget authority and $13.3 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996. The 
bill is $0.5 million in budget authority and $0.25 million in outlays 
under the subcommittee's revised 602(b) allocation.
  Mr. President, the subcommittee had difficult decisions to make in 
setting priorities for the funding in this bill. In revisiting the bill 
for the third time, the conferees restored important funding for the 
native American programs funded in the bill. I have fought for this 
outcome since the bill came before the Senate. While we have not made 
up all the funding I believe is necessary for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs for tribal priority allocations, the restoration of $25 million 
for this purpose is significant. I thank the chairman for his efforts 
in this regard.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the conference agreement be printed in the 
Record, and I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

        INTERIOR SUBCOMMITTEE, SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT       
               [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, conference report..................     12,089      8,208
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
        Subtotal nondefense discretionary.........     12,234     13,210
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........         24
    H.R. 1977, conference report..................         59         25
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget Resolution assumptions................          6          6
                                                   ---------------------
        Subtotal mandatory........................         65         55
                                                   ---------------------

[[Page S18616]]
                                                                        
            Adjusted bill total...................     12,299     13,265
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary.........................  .........  .........
    Nondefense discretionary......................     12,235     13,210
    Violent crime reduction trust fund............  .........  .........
    Mandatory.....................................         65         55
        Total allocation..........................     12,300     13,265
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary.........................  .........  .........
    Nondefense discretionary......................         -1         -0
    Violent crime reduction trust fund............  .........  .........
    Mandatory.....................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
        Total allocation..........................         -1         -0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    


  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute past the 2 o'clock time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe the Senator has 2 minutes under his 
control, at any rate.
  Mr. GORTON. Fine.
  Mr. President, one of the finer customs of the Senate, one of the 
customs that makes it work in contentious times better than might 
otherwise be the case, is the custom of Senators to treat kindly their 
fellow Members and to speak well of them. I think that is a wonderful 
custom, and I have been its beneficiary on a number of occasions. But I 
must say, I have never been its beneficiary in such fulsome terms as 
were just applied to me by my friend and colleague, mentor, the senior 
Senator from West Virginia. I cannot claim to deserve all of those 
compliments, but I may appreciate them even the more for that.
  I learned what I have learned in the service of the Appropriations 
Committee from him during his chairmanship, and the extent that I have 
had a success this year has been largely due to the advice and the 
guidance which the senior Senator from West Virginia has provided.
  He has stated very well the difficulties under which this bill is 
presented to this body, the great contribution it makes to deficit 
reduction and the difficulty that that created in attempting to 
properly fund and instruct the agencies under its jurisdiction. I have 
also made a statement to that effect.
  I will simply solicit the support of my colleagues for the bill which 
I believe reaches its goals well, considering the challenges with which 
we are faced, and I hope that the President will change his mind and 
sign it, as it will be much better than any alternative that he is 
likely to receive through a continuing resolution.
  The yeas and nays have not been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COVERDELL). They have not.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1996. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 604 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gramm
       
  So, the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before we move on to the next item, I wish 
to add to the list of thanks that I gave earlier in connection with 
this bill the name of Julie Kays from my own personal staff who has 
handled every aspect of this bill for me in a tremendously successful 
and skilled fashion.

                          ____________________