Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9503-S9510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while we are waiting for a final draft
of the amendment I intend to offer, I thought in the meantime I might
just as well talk about it, and then we can take care of it when it is
ready.
Senator Torricelli and I had a very interesting time earlier this
week in helping celebrate the aftermath of the reenactment of the
Battle of Antietam which occurred this past weekend, which reenacted
one of the most, if not the most, violent battles in the history of
warfare in the Civil War.
It was a remarkable experience, because not only were there thousands
of people participating in the reenactment, but there also were over
100,000 people who watched the reenactment of that incredible battle
which was, they say, the most bloody of the Civil War.
It reminded me of this Nation, as we march on toward the end of this
millennium, that we do have an obligation to make a commitment to
ourselves in this interim before we go to the next millennium to ensure
that we have learned the lessons of history, especially in this Nation,
now the most proud and important and strongest Nation in the world, of
how we formed and how we lived our lives up through the time it was
created in respect to its modern form of people arriving from Europe
and other places, and the struggles that we had which were not easy
ones.
We are still, in a sense, living some of the aftermath with respect
to some of the biases and problems of discrimination in this Nation
against those in the black community, who, as we all know, came over
here as slaves, and then the great Civil War between the North and the
South fought, to some extent, based upon the principles of the States
rights, and yet also the very, very difficult question of abolishment
of slavery in this country.
I have had the opportunity over the course of time to study a great
deal about that war, for Vermont was very dedicated and, in many ways,
was the leader in the sense of commitment, for it was early on that
Vermonters participated in a higher number per capita than any State in
the North. In battle after battle, Vermonters were at the head of the
troops. In fact, Lincoln at one time commented after reviewing the
efforts of Vermonters, ``Just tell them to follow the Vermonters.''
When I was first in the Senate, our Vermont Legislature, in
commemoration of the 100th year of the Battle of

[[Page S9504]]

Cedar Creek--I guess it was a little longer than that, 120th, or
something like that, because that was 1864, so I wasn't quite here yet,
obviously. But anyway, they, in a sense, passed a resolution telling
the Vermont delegation that they should go to the Battle of Cedar Creek
and locate a monument which was erected there many, many years ago
which commemorated the Vermonters. I will mention a little bit about
that in a moment.
We went there and had to locate it. It was at the back of a private
house, and we found that it was all grown up and trees were winding in
and out of the fencework around it. So we took immediate steps to get
permission from the landowner and then transferred that information
back to our legislature.
But it brought to mind that before the memorabilia and memorials all
disappeared, it would be important for us to try and see what we could
do to retain them and make them available for future generations.
So I introduced a bill to commemorate, in a sense, the battle in 1864
which led to the election of Lincoln, but also I became so entranced
with Stonewall Jackson that I began to study the Stonewall Jackson
campaign which occurred earlier in 1862 and recognized and realized
from reading that it was the Jackson campaign in the Shenandoah Valley
that led to a whole new concept of how to conduct war.
In those battles, Stonewall Jackson took advantage of modern movement
by the railroads. So he would appear in one place in Virginia, lodge a
battle and then hop on a train and move to a totally different area,
and in wonderment, he would appear miles and miles away and have
another battle.
So I came to the conclusion that it would make it very interesting if
we could save those battlefields and to create a sort of historic trail
with the Park Service so that people could, in a few days, start and
follow the Stonewall Jackson campaign and move up through the
Shenandoah Valley and then turn around and come back.
That idea grew. Then attached to that at that time came the thought
that we ought to take a look at conserving all battlefields that had a
meaningful part of our history. Thus, the Battlefield Commission was
created and the coin and all to try and fund it. That happened.
Now we are coming, as I started to say, to the end of our century,
the end of the millennium, and still much needs to be done to be able
to make sure that the history and the battlefields which were the main
battles of the Civil War are not lost for future generations.
We have found that many of them are up for sale or the lands around
them or critical pieces of land that were involved with those
battlefields are up for sale.
Thus, shortly we will be introducing an amendment to make sure that
we do not lose the opportunity to provide the funding and the direction
to the appropriate Federal officials to make sure that there are funds
available to ensure that we can maintain the integrity of the main
battlefields of the Civil War.
I know my friend from New Jersey, who was with me as we thought about
this and met with people this past week, joins me in this. I now yield
the floor and allow him to participate in this discussion as we await
the final draft.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for giving me
the opportunity to join with him in this amendment and offer not only
my support by my appeal to our colleagues to not only support us in
this effort tonight but in future years to keep the commitment to
respond to the threat to battlefield sites and other aspects of
American history, to give our true measure to protecting the history of
this country.
In his Pulitzer prizewinning book, ``Battle Cry of Freedom,'' James
McPherson once wrote of the Civil War that:

Most of the things that we consider important in this era
of American history--the fate of slavery, the structure of
both the North and South, the direction of the American
economy . . . the definition of freedom, the very survival of
the United States--rested on the shoulders of those weary men
in blue and grey * * *.

Most of those men, Mr. President, were simple volunteers, laborers,
farmers. They were paid little and endured horrific conditions.
Throughout the duration of the war, 620,000 Americans, black and white,
North and South, soldiers and sailors, paid an extraordinary price to
preserve this Nation or to define it as they would have had its future.
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Jeffords in memory of those
brave men because the lands where they fought, the places where they
sacrificed, face a new threat. The battlefields of America, which
define this country, where they gave their lives, may be lost to
history. Future generations who might have been instructed by their
sacrifices or discovered America by understanding what occurred on
these lands will be denied the opportunity.
We rise, Mr. President, on an auspicious occasion in offering this
amendment because it was 135 years ago today, only miles north of this
Senate Chamber, when more than 125,000 Americans, Union and
Confederate, gathered on the rolling fields near Sharpsburg, MD, for
what we know as the Battle of Antietam.

It is therefore a fitting evening as we gather tonight to consider
saving the lands where they died, to remember that only 12 hours after
they gathered, in what would be remembered tomorrow, 23,000 men lay
dead in what was the bloodiest day in American history, a day in which
three times as many Americans fell as died on D-Day.
I remember this anniversary, Mr. President, because I come to this
effort helping Senator Jeffords here tonight because, with friends, I
visited the Antietam Battlefield only months ago. I stood in the Sunken
Road where 5,000 men fell as a part of that battle.
And as I stood in the Sunken Road, where so many men gave their
lives, looking from the Confederate positions to where the Union
assault would have come, I recognized something peculiar that did not
belong, strange to a great Nation, a ``For Sale'' sign stuck into this
sacred ground rested where brave men led an assault to save or define
or to change the United States.
Mr. President, when Abraham Lincoln dedicated the national cemetery
at Gettysburg, he said:

We cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground. The
brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

I recall these words in this Chamber today because it is now for us
to decide whether Lincoln was right or was wrong, because a ``For
Sale'' sign is on lands where so many Americans fell, where generations
will seek to visit to learn of their sacrifice and understand the rich
and proud history of America. It is no place for commercial
development, the sale and destruction of lands. It is, Mr. President, a
desecration.
The battlefield of Antietam is not alone. Today, hundreds of
battlefields, where thousands of others died, face the similar threat
of ``For Sale'' signs, a future as shopping malls, strip development,
or suburban housing tracts.
The battlefields of Antietam, where Senator Sessions and Senator
Murray tell me that their own great-grandfathers lost their lives, will
soon be housing tracts or the same commercial development that I fear.
North of Antietam, in Gettysburg, home to Pickett's charge, Senator
Lott tells me his own great-grandfather fell, on the left flank of what
was the bloodiest battle where 55,000 Americans died in 3 days, more
than in all the battles in the war of 14 years in Vietnam.
South of here, in the lands around Fredericksburg, best captured by
the photograph to my right--home to the battles of Chancellorsville,
Wilderness, and Spotsylvania Court House--important Civil War
landmarks have already been destroyed by housing tracts and shopping
centers.

Places where schoolchildren would have visited to remember their own
relatives, learn about their sacrifices, understand how America came to
be as we know it today will never have the experience. But it isn't
just Gettysburg, it isn't only Antietam, it isn't simply experienced by
Fredericksburg. It's Vicksburg, MS; Petersburg, VA; Mobile, AL; Fort
Donelson, TN; Perryville, KY; Bentonville, NC; Chickamunga, GA.
Indeed, two-thirds of the most important Civil War battlefield sites
in our Nation in the next 6 years could be irrevocably lost to history.
We are not, Mr. President, the first Senate to recognize this threat.
In November 1990,

[[Page S9505]]

under the leadership of Senator Bumpers and in the House of
Representatives under the leadership of Congressman Mrazek of New York,
with the signature of President Bush, we established the Civil War
Sites Advisory Commission to advise the Congress on how to preserve
these lands. This 15-member panel identified 384 critical Civil War
battles or engagement sites that, in their judgment, should be
preserved.
Even 7 years ago, however, they recognized that 20 percent were
already lost to history through commercial development. But they
recognized that there are still 260 that could be saved. They warned
then that time was short. Now, it is even shorter.
Our amendment, through a sense of the Senate, will ask that the
conferees use their best efforts to use funding available in the Land
and Conservation Fund to immediately make available, within Park
Service boundaries, funding to save those lands still available. It
will use less than 10 percent of the funding available to the Congress
this year out of the conservation funds.
We offer this as a sense of the Senate because we have Senator Lott's
commitment, and I believe his sincere pledge, to defend the interests
of this Senate in preserving these lands, but mostly because Senator
Gorton has given his own commitment. Because of his own sincere belief
in this effort, he will lead us in this important cause.
Mr. President, I am standing here tonight as a representative of a
young country. We are challenged, I think, by the notion that if we
stood not in the U.S. Congress but in the French National Assembly, the
British Parliament, or any other great assembly in Europe, it would be
unthinkable that the lands of Verdun or Stalingrad or Waterloo would
ever be destroyed through commercial development.
Perhaps our Nation is not as old, but its history is just as
important. Our own children will look for instruction from what
occurred in these important lands just as much as those of France,
Russia or Britain.
So, Mr. President, I offer this amendment with Senator Jeffords,
giving my thanks to our colleagues who join with us and, indeed, to
Professor McPherson, who has inspired yet another generation with his
writing and battle cry of freedom and for writing to Members of the
Senate today in support of this important amendment.
Senator Jeffords, thank you for your leadership, and, Senator Gorton,
thank you for your help in representing the Senate in the conference in
preserving the sense of the Senate and dedicating these funds to this
important effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning of the
discussion of this bill last Thursday afternoon, my subcommittee is an
extremely popular one. I had some 1,800 special requests from Members,
almost all for projects of one sort or another in their own States. I
believe we may finish this bill tomorrow, but we have some two pages of
amendments, most of which are not matters of profound national policy
but, again, for specific programs or projects in individual States.
It is with that in mind that I want to say how refreshing it is to
hear from these two Senators of their tremendous desire to save the
sites of the most important battles, many of the most important
battles, in the history of the United States that were fought in that
profound turning point in our history, the Civil War.
I am quite a Civil War buff myself, a fan of Professor McPherson's
book, perhaps an even greater fan of Shelby Foote, but with all of my
reading, I fail to remember a single battle that took place in the
State of New Jersey, and I can remember of only one skirmish that took
place in the State of Vermont that was made into a movie a couple of
decades ago. So the Senate has not heard from two Senators who are
attempting to create projects in their own States. They are hearing
from Senators who care deeply about our heritage and care deeply about
the preservation of the physical aspects of that heritage.
At least two of the amendments that will be adopted tomorrow will
relate to sites of battles that have already been preserved in large
part but where the ravages of time are having a negative impact. The
Senators know of my bias in favor of supporting them.
Even so, when the two Senators who sponsor this amendment first
brought it to me, they placed me on the horns of a dilemma from which
they now have most graciously removed me. The source of the money for
the preservation of these sites is the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. A $700 million infusion into the Land and Water Conservation Fund
was a recommendation of the President, which at least at that level was
acceded to by the Senate leadership in negotiations over the budget. It
was not a mandatory part of that budget agreement. The House of
Representatives omitted to fund any portion of that $700 million.
Feeling very strongly, in general terms, about the importance of not
just this kind of preservation but of other preservation, my bill does
include that $700 million. It sets three priority items for use of that
money, two of which amount to almost half of the $700 million, high-
profile priorities of the President of the United States--the
Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana.
Another $100 million in it is appropriately earmarked for the States'
share program, money to share with the States as we have in the past
for their own preservation of recreational and other property.
So when the Secretary of the Interior came to me with this request,
we made the determination that we would not earmark money directly for
any other projects. I didn't want to be faced with a whole series of
recommendations from the administration in which we in the Congress
played no role. And I think it's safe to say the Secretary of the
Interior and the administration didn't want us to spend all of the
money without the administration playing any role in that
determination. So I agreed that we would oppose additional specific
earmarks in this bill.
At that point, these two Senators came along, either on their own, or
knowing my own biases, and asked for money for a purpose which I think
is worthy and of the highest possible priority. So they did put me on
the horns of a dilemma. They have now agreed to make this a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution as to how the money ought to be spent, with my
support and with the support of the majority leader.
So I want to do two things. I want to thank them for phrasing it in
this fashion and I pledge my support as we vote on the amendment. I
also want to tell them that as we do work with the administration to
set priorities across the country for the spending of the money from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, assuming that we can get the
House of Representatives to agree that we are going to have the money
at all, it is very difficult for me to imagine any higher priority than
the preservation of these Civil War sites. So I want to agree with this
amendment.

Amendment No. 1218

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the preservation
of Civil War battlefields)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for himself and Mr.
Torricelli proposes an amendment numbered 1218.

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

At the end of title III, insert the following:
Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) preserving Civil War battlefields should be an integral
part of preserving our Nation's history; and
(2) Congress should give special priority to the
preservation of Civil War battlefields by making funds
available for the purchase of threatened and endangered Civil
War battlefield cites.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my amendment is a critically important
amendment to make sure that we preserve the Civil War battlefields for
those people who will be in the next millennium to better understand
this Nation.
Mr. President, I am proud to be joined today by Senator Torricelli in
offering this amendment of national historic significance.

[[Page S9506]]

The American Civil War is thought by many historians to be the
fundamental event shaping the character of the United States. This
amendment takes a giant stride at preserving our history by
establishing that it is these funds that be made available to protect
the threatened American Civil War battlefields.
I am proud to say that there is in this land a great wellspring of
caring for the places where freedom was won and defended. Millions of
Americans have, in recent years, become aware of the hallowed ground of
our Civil War battlefields, have visited them, read of them, many have
written of them.
The clear and eloquent message I hear is that these treasured places
should be saved, intact, for future generations. The preservation
message goes forth from Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Cold Harbor,
Malvern Hill, Cedar Creek, Petersburg, Stones River, and dozens more
Civil War places.
When battlefields become severely threatened there quickly develops a
continuity of Americans that spreads nationwide. The American people
care about their history, look on these places as national treasures,
and speak eloquently and effectively for their preservation.
Preserving our Nation's battlefields is a subject very close to my
heart. My efforts to preserve our Nation's historic places actually
began in my State of Vermont several years ago when the Vermont
Legislature unanimously passed a resolution asking Congress to save the
places where Vermonters fought in the Civil War. The resolution was
presented to me, and I went to work finding out all I could about the
battlefields and what was needed. It quickly became apparent that the
Civil War battlefields were in need of protection.
Over 7 years ago, Congress responded to the growing awareness of our
Civil War heritage and the concern for the sites where that heritage
took form, by passing legislation that created a national Civil War
Sites Advisory Commission. Composed of distinguished historians,
supported by a staff of National Park Service experts, the commission
for 2 years studied the remaining Civil War battlefields. Civil War
sites were visited, public meetings held, and in the end a report was
written. The report presented a plan of action for protecting what
remain of the Civil War battlefields. It is a plan that has recognized
the need to act, a plan that I strongly favor.
Mr. President, as a proud American, preserving our great history is
an opportunity I am always ready to seize. Congress should do what we
can to help meet the recommendations of the Civil War Advisory
Commission by preserving the country's most endangered Civil War sites.
In fighting to preserve Civil War battle sites, we have aimed to
create the chance for our citizens to travel from battlefield to
battlefield and to relive the brilliant Jackson campaign of 1862, and
the successful Union campaign of 1864. By preserving these sites, we
will allow people to enjoy the beautiful surroundings such as the
Shenandoah Valley and give area economies an important boost.
Several years ago, I had the privilege to travel from battlefield to
battlefield with several Civil War historians and Civil War buffs. We
saw those battlefields pretty much as they were during the Civil War.
We relived Jackson's battles of the 1862 campaign, one of the most
studied campaigns in history. We also retraced the Union campaign of
1864. At that time the election was not looking so good for President
Lincoln, and the Union was in dire need of battle victories. General
Sheridan marched the Union forces up to the valley and won a series of
battles culminating in the Battle of Ceder Creek. Many historians
believe that this was the turning point in the war.
Mr. President, I came away from this trip with the strong feeling
that it is my responsibility as U.S. Senator to help preserve this part
of our national heritage. Bruce Catton, one of our Nation's most
eminent historians has written:

Any historian who confronts a gap in the record of bygone
days knows moments of despair when he complains bitterly that
no one took the trouble to dig out and assemble all of the
facts while those facts where still available. To use
unlimited resources in as broad and as all-inclusive as it
possibly can be, to do it while everything is still fresh,
and to do it with no other earthly motive than a desire to
establish the full truth--this is the sort of thing that only
governments can do, and they almost never dream of doing it.

Mr. Catton's words are more important than just an expression of the
historian's frustration at not having access to ``all the facts.'' His
words constitute a challenge, a challenge to government to preserve and
protect the fragile bits and pieces of our Nation's history that remain
with us today, but which tomorrow could vanish forever.
Just this past weekend, the Battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg, as it
was referred to by the Confederates, was relived as over 15,000 civil
war enthusiasts reenacted this bloody battle before over 100,000
spectators. On this day, 135 years ago, over 23,000 brave Americans
lost their lives at the Battle of Antietam. The number of casualties
was three times greater than the number of Americans killed at Normandy
on D-day. Left for the dead on the battlefield, but surviving, was a
young captain from Massachusetts who became one of the nation's most
respected Supreme Court Justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. General
McClellan sent a message to Washington of a great victory, however the
Confederates escaped across the Potomac and retreated into the lower
Shanandoah Valley with little interference. Many believe that the
victory prompted Abraham Lincoln to unveil his preliminary Emancipation
Proclamation on September 22, 1862.
Mr. President, if we persist, we could give to future generations of
Americans a gift of history, the opportunity to see, to walk, the
hallowed ground of one of the most beautiful places on earth where this
Nation's history was written. If we fail, we must answer to future
generations who go in vain to seek places of our heritage. On October
19, 1864, with victory in his grasp, Jubal Early declined to launch a
last attack. Early believed his valiant Confederate troops had won an
adequate victory for the day along the banks of Cedar Creek. ``But this
is the Sixth Corps,'' an aide protested, ``and they will not go unless
we drive them.'' Early did not attack and his day was soon lost.
To those who would act too cautiously here, I say, ``But this is the
eleventh hour. The battlefields will be lost unless we act now and
decisively.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New
York Times of July 4, 1997, on the ``latest battle of Gettysburg'' be
printed in the Record, along with a letter from James M. McPherson, of
Princeton University, supporting my amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, July 4, 1997]

The Latest Battle of Gettysburg

When Abraham Lincoln said of Gettysburg that ``the brave
men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated
it, far above our poor power to add or detract,'' he did not
reckon on the power of 20th-century developers.
At issue are 50 acres just outside the protective
boundaries of the Battlefield Historic District at the
interchange of Routes 15 and 30 in Pennsylvania. Gettysburg
has mushroomed as a bedroom community in the last five years
because of its proximity to the Baltimore-Washington area.
Wal-Mart, several large hotels, fast-food franchises, grocery
stores and a miniature golf course line the Route 30
corridor. Now, developers want to build a Giant Superstore on
land that used to be Camp Letterman.
Camp Letterman was merely a field hospital in the sense
that Gettysburg, where more than 7,000 died and 50,000 were
wounded, was merely a battle. Nearly 5,000 union and
Confederate soldiers were cared for in 500 tents at the camp.
Historical records indicate that more than 1,200 were buried
at the site. Although a mobile home park now sits on a small
portion of Camp Letterman, which is under option by a
development company, there has been no bulldozing or land
contouring. Straban Township, where the camp is located,
recently granted conditional approval to the development
plan, although final approval is still pending with the Army
Corps of Engineers, which can withhold building permits if
significant archeological resources are discovered during
excavation efforts. Archeological surveys so far have yielded
indications of a grave.
The situation at Camp Letterman is emblematic of a national
epidemic. Hallowed ground throughout the country is
threatened by commercial development. For instance, a gravel
company has optioned Buffington Island, the site of the only
major battle in Ohio. If plans go through, the battlefield
will be mined into a heap of pebbles. One of the more
infamous struggles between development and historical
preservation occurred in 1994 when the Walt Disney Company
proposed to build a theme park in Virginia near

[[Page S9507]]

the Civil War shrines of Manassas. Had it not been for loud
opposition from a conglomerate of scholars and legislators,
Disney would have damaged an important historic area.
But most of the sites in jeopardy do not get publicity on
the scale of Manassas, if they receive any attention at all.
That should not diminish the significance of places like Camp
Letterman, where soldiers spilled their blood for the sake of
their country. In 1991, Congress created the Civil War Study
Commission to avoid such dilemmas. The commission was charged
with identifying high-priority sites and drawing up a plan to
protect them. One of the most important discoveries involved
public perception. Americans overwhelmingly believe that all
Civil War sites are already protected. In fact, less than 4
percent fall under the national park system. More than one-
third of all important battlefields are either ruined or
nearly so. Without swift preservation efforts, the nation
stands to lose two-thirds of its main battlefields within 10
years.
When the commission released its report in 1993, it
recommended that Congress enact a ``Civil War Heritage
Preservation'' law that would establish a national policy to
protect the battlefields and related sites through a
cooperative effort by national, state and local governments
and private groups. But in a time of shrinking fiscal
resources, its suggestions were shelved.
Sites like Camp Letterman tell the story of bravery and
human suffering and conviction. The exchange of this heritage
for strip malls and grocery stores is reprehensibly cheap.
Before important parts of our past disappear, Congress should
look to the future by re-examining the Civil War Study
Commission's recommendations.
____

Princeton University,

Department of History,

Princeton, NJ, September 16, 1997.
Senators James Jeffords and Robert G. Torricelli,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Jeffords and Torricelli: I strongly support
the American Heritage Preservation Amendment that you have
introduced in the Senate to use part of the proceeds from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for Civil War battlefield
preservation.
In his address at Gettysburg to dedicate the cemetery for
soldiers who had died in the epic battle, Abraham Lincoln
said that the world ``can never forget what they did here.''
Nor has the world forgotten. Millions of people visit
Gettysburg and other Civil War battlefields every year. Most
come away profoundly moved by the experience. Yet portions of
many of these battlefields are endangered by encroaching
commercial and residential development. Thousands of acres of
hallowed ground may disappear under concrete and asphalt
unless we act now.
As a member of the congressional Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission, which in 1993 recommended urgent action by
public-private partnerships to purchase or otherwise protect
these acres. I have been disappointed by the failure of
Congress to act. Private organizations such as the
Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, the
Civil War Trust, and the Conservation Fund have raised
millions of dollars for this purpose. But they cannot do it
all alone. That is why I urge Congress to pass your American
Heritage Preservation Amendment, which will dedicate a small
portion--no more than 10 percent--of the $700 million already
designated for land acquisition from the LWCF for the
purchase of important Civil War sites.
``We cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground,''
said Lincoln at Gettysburg. ``The brave men, living and dead,
who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract.'' Lincoln was both right and wrong.
We cannot consecrate this ground, but we can desecrate it. We
must take steps now to prevent that desecration. The
Jeffords-Torricelli Amendment is a crucial first step toward
this goal.
Sincerely yours,
James M. McPherson.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1218) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to
make a technical clarification to the committee report on page 32 of
the report, which indicates that a report on the Natchez National
Historic Park as being due on January 30, 1997. The actual due date,
obviously, would be January 30, 1998.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1212

(Purpose: Requires the Forest Service to implement recreation residence
special use permit fees over a 5 year phase-in period and provides that
no increases in fees may occur on the Sawtooth National Forest until
January 1, 1999, and further provides that no fees may be increased
sooner than a year after release of the Forest Service appraisal of the
property)

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

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Craig,
proposes an amendment numbered 1212.

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

On page 127, at the end of Title III add the following
general provision:
Sec. 3 . The Secretary of Agriculture shall hereafter
phase in, over a 5 year period, the fee increase for a
recreation residence special use permit holder whose fee
increase is more than 100 percent of the previous year's fee,
provided that no recreation residence fee may be increased
any sooner than one year from the time the permittee has been
notified by the Forest Service of the results of an appraisal
which has been conducted for the purpose of establishing such
fees, and provided further that no increases in recreation
residence fees on the Sawtooth National Forest will be
implemented prior to January 1, 1999.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this suspends, for the period of this next
fiscal year, the implementation of fees for recreational use for cabins
in a national forest in Idaho, while Senator Craig and the appropriate
committee discusses the method by which those fees were arrived at. It
is cleared by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1212) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1213

(Purpose: To revise the boundaries of the Arkansas Post Memorial, and
for other purposes)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Mr. Bumpers and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Bumpers,
proposes an amendment numbered 1213.

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

At the end of title I, add the following new section:

SEC. .ARKANSAS POST NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

(a) The boundaries of the Arkansas Post National Memorial
are revised to include the approximately 360 acres of land
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Arkansas Post
National Memorial, Osotouy Unit, Arkansas County, Arkansas''
and dated June 1993. Such map shall be on file and available
for public inspection in appropriate offices of the National
Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire
the lands and interests therein described in subsection (a)
by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
exchange: Provided, that such lands or interests therein may
only be acquired with the consent of the owner thereof.

Mr. GORTON. This amendment will modify the boundaries of the Arkansas
Post Memorial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1213) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1214

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Mr. Cochran and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Cochran,
proposes an amendment numbered 1214.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S9508]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 47, line 9, following ``(25 U.S.C. 45, et seq.)''
insert the following: ``or the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501, et seq.)''.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this technical amendment clarifies
language on the investment of certain funding by tribes and tribal
organizations. The committee included language to provide some
flexibility to tribes receiving advance payments of school grant funds.
This language clarifies that such advance payments include those under
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, or the
Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1214) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1215

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Mr. Murkowski and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Murkowski, proposes
an amendment numbered 1215.

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

At the appropriate place insert the following:
``Sec. . Entry and permit limitations for Glacier Bay
National Park shall not apply to the Auk Nu Marine--Glacier
Bay Ferry entering Bartlett Cove for the sole purpose of
accessing park or other authorized visitor services or
facilities at, or originating from, the public dock area at
Bartlett Cove: Provided, That any such motor vessel entering
park waters for this stated and sole purpose shall be subject
to speed, distance from coast lines, and related limitations
imposed on all vessels operating in waters designated by the
Superintendent, Glacier Bay, as having a high probability of
whale occupancy based on recent sighting and/or past patterns
of occurrence: Provided further, That nothing in this Act
shall be construed as constituting approval for such vessels
entering the waters of Glacier Bay National Park beyond the
immediate Bartlett Cove area as defined by a line extending
northeastward from Pt. Carolus to the west to the
southernmost point of Lester Island, absent required
permits.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to bring an
important element of the Alaskan national park experience to a wider
range of visitors than has previously been the case.
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, west of Juneau, can be
reached only by boat or plane. Park headquarters at Bartlett Cove is 65
miles from Juneau. It is an additional 40 miles from Bartlett Cove to
the park's signature tidewater glaciers.
Glacier Bay proper is highly regulated by the National Park Service.
Currently, only two cruise ships are allowed to proceed, from the
outside, into Glacier Bay per day.
This amendment is not about cruise ships, nor will it adversely
impact the forty miles from Bartlett Cove to the tidewater glaciers. In
fact, this amendment has nothing to do with going into the bay beyond
Bartlett Cove at the entrance to the Park.
Bartlett Cove, within Glacier Bay National Park, contains the Glacier
Bay Lodge and Visitor Center, campground, Ranger Station, employee
housing, maintenance facilities, etc. In short, it is the only
developed area within the 3.3 million acre park.
The Cove also includes the docking facilities for NPS craft and the
daily concession-operated tour boat. Overnight facilities are extremely
limited, so day-use concession trips are one of the only ways, short of
taking a cruise ship from Vancouver, to visit the park.
According to a recent ``Consumer Report's'' article, Glacier Bay is
the highest rated park in America. The article does, unfortunately,
mention the words ``if you can get to it''.
Currently, daily or overnight guests who leave Juneau by ferry for
Glacier Bay National Park must disembark at the Gustavus docking
facility and then get into a bus and drive for 45 minutes to an hour,
to get to the NPS unpaved portion of the road which then leads to the
docking facility so that you can again board a tour boat to go out and
see the tidewater glaciers.
On the way back to Juneau from the glaciers, visitors travel by tour
boat, then by the bus back through Gustavus, and finally by boat, back
to Juneau.
Mr. President, this amendment is about: Convenient visitor access,
access for the handicapped, access for the elderly; and, safety.
Somewhere along the line, in its effort to control the waters of
Glacier Bay, the Bureaucracy forgot the concept that we are here to
serve the all of the public * * * all of the people who would like to
be National Park visitors * * * including the elderly, including those
with handicaps and those whose age or physical condition necessitate
easier forms of access to their national park.
It may be a surprise to some, but, some park visitors cannot leap
tall facilities in a single bound. Some visitors, because of a
disabling condition cannot get from the deck of a boat to a
deteriorating dock facility 18 feet overhead.
Some visitors, even the most able among us, cannot be expected to
jump from a boat on to an unprotected dock in high and windy seas just
off of Icy Passage.
Unfortunately, in Alaska, and specifically Glacier Bay National Park,
we have forgotten about the park visitor's convenience and safety. The
dock facility at Gustavus is inconvenient, it is less than handicapped
accessible, it can certainly be considered unsafe in certain wind and
sea conditions.
This amendment will only allow the Auk Nu Marine--Glacier Bay Ferry
to deliver park visitors, safely, to the protected harbor at Bartlett
Cove within the boundaries of Glacier Bay National Park so that they
can conveniently board the tour boat, or go to the lodge * * * period.
The amendment does nothing else.
This amendment does not preclude the Superintendent from imposing
speed limits and/or taking any other such actions to protect the
wildlife and the other natural resources or waters of Glacier Bay
National Park.
The amendment is not an attempt to subvert the current permit system,
it is not as complicated as how do you know when it's time to tune your
bagpipes. The amendment is simple and straight forward.
This amendment only involves safe and user-friendly access to the
developed park facilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in this
effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1215) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1216

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1216.

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

Title I of Public Law 96-514 (94 Stat. 2957) is amended
under the heading ``Exploration of National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska'' by striking ``(8) each lease shall be issued''
through the end of the first paragraph and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
(8) each lease shall be issued for an initial period of ten
years, and shall be extended for so long thereafter as oil or
gas is produced from the lease in paying quantities, or as
drilling or reworking operations, as approved by the
Secretary, are conducted thereon; (9) for purposes of
conservation of the natural resources of any oil or gas pool,
field, or like area, or any part thereof, lessees thereof and
their representatives are authorized to unite with each
other, or jointly or separately with others, in collectively
adopting and operating under a unit agreement for such pool,
field, or like area, or any part thereof

[[Page S9509]]

(whether or not any other part of said oil or gas pool,
field, or like area is already subject to any cooperative or
unit plan of development or operation), whenever determined
by the Secretary to be necessary or advisable in the public
interest. Drilling, production, and well re-working
operations performed in accordance with unit agreement shall
be deemed to be performed for the benefit of all leases that
are subject in whole or in part to such unit agreement. When
separate tracts cannot be independently developed and
operation in conformity with an established well spacing or
development program, any lease, or a portion thereof, may be
pooled with other lands, whether or not owned by the United
States, under a communitization or drilling agreement
providing for an apportionment of production or royalties
among the separate tracts of land comprising the drilling or
spacing unit when determined by the Secretary of the Interior
to be in the public interest, and operations or production
pursuant to such an agreement shall be deemed to be
operations or production as to each such lease committed
thereto; (10) to encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of
oil or gas or in the interest of conservation the Secretary
is authorized to waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, or
minimum royalty, or reduce the royalty on an entire
leasehold, including on any lease operated pursuant to a unit
agreement, whenever in his judgment the leases cannot be
successfully operated under the terms provided therein. The
Secretary is authorized to direct or assent to the suspension
of operations and production on any lease or unit. In the
event the Secretary, in the interest of conservation, shall
direct or assent to the suspension of operations and
production on any lease or unit, any payment of acreage
rental or minimum royalty prescribed by such lease or unit
likewise shall be suspended during the period of suspension
of operations and production, and the term of such lease
shall be extended by adding any such suspension period
thereto; and (11) all receipts from sales, rentals, bonuses,
and royalties on leases issued pursuant to this section shall
be paid into the Treasury of the United States: Provided,
That 50 per centum thereof shall be paid by the Secretary of
the Treasury semiannually, as soon thereafter as practicable
after March 30 and September 30 each year, to the State of
Alaska for (a) planning, (b) construction, maintenance, and
operation of essential public facilities, and (c) other
necessary provisions of public service: Provided further,
That in the allocation of such funds, the State shall give
priority to use by subdivisions of the Senate most directly
or severely impacted by development of oil and gas leased
under this Act.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this clarifies conditions for oil and gas
leasing of a national petroleum reserve in Alaska.
Mr. President, I should make clear that this amendment is cleared on
both sides and is acceptable to the administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1216) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1217

(Purpose: Includes language limiting the expenditure of funds which may
occur to fund the Forest Service's Juneau regional office)

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1217.

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

On page 69, lines 9 and 10, strike ``the relocation of the
Regional Office for Region 10 to Ketchikan and other''.
On page 77, beginning on line 14 add the following: ``Funds
appropriated by this Act for Region 10 of the Forest Service
to implement the Revised Tongass National Forest Land
Management Plan, shall be spent and obligated at the Forest
Supervisor and Ranger District levels. No funds appropriated
under this or any other Act for the purpose of operations
conducted at the Region 10 headquarters, including funding of
centralized field costs for funding of persons employed at
the Regional Office, shall be obligated or expended in excess
of $17,500,000 from the total funds appropriated for Region
10''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the managers of the bill have accepted
an amendment I have offered concerning the organization and funding for
the Alaska Region of the U.S. Forest Service. I appreciate the
consideration of the managers on this matter.
As many of my colleagues know, the Forest Service has recently
completed the Tongass land management plan after a 10-year and $13
million effort. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has
conducted an extended oversight process on the development of this plan
and on the prospects for successful implementation upon completion.
Hearings held in July, August, and this month have raised significant
questions about whether the Forest Service is organized, staffed, and
funded to assure full implementation of the Tongass land management
plan.
As a consequence of concerns raised during the early hearings in this
series, the subcommittee chairman agreed to include language in the
committee bill directing a reorganization of the Alaska Region. In
subsequent hearings, we have collected additional information that
suggests that, rather than moving to immediately reorganize the Alaska
Region, it might be better to provide the Agency some direction on:
First, the allocation of funds within the Alaska Region; and second,
the development of a transition plan for implementation of the Tongass
land management plan.
I believe that through the information collection in the oversight
process conducted by the Commission on Energy and Natural Resources we
have developed a more perfected proposal than the one included in the
committee bill. Therefore, I am offering, as an amendment to the
committee bill, new language which directs that:

Funds appropriated by this Act for Region 10 of the Forest
Service to implement the Revised TLMP shall be spent and
obligated at the Forest Supervisor and Ranger District
levels. No funds appropriated under this or any other Act for
the purpose of operations conducted at the Region 10
Headquarters, including funding of centralized field costs or
funding of persons employed at the Regional Office, shall be
obligated or expanded in excess of $17.5 million from the
total funds appropriated for Region 10.

The managers have also agreed to the following explanatory language
in their statement explaining changes made to the committee bill:

The Tongass Land Management Plan reduces the Allowable Sale
Quantity of the Alaska region. It is presumed that the Forest
Service will tailor its workforce and organization
appropriately. The Committee notes that expenditures on
Regional Office operations and centralized field costs at the
Region Headquarters has risen to 30 percent from 18 percent
of annual appropriated funds since 1993. The Committee
recognizes that the reduced timber volume offered under this
plan will create economic hardships for local communities and
that imbalanced distribution of remaining federal jobs and
spending in the region may compound those hardships.
Accordingly, the Committee expects the Regional Forester to
conduct a regional work load study and to develop a workforce
plan that ensures high levels of customer service throughout
the region, preserves the Regional Headquarters in Alaska,
evaluates the need to consolidate and/or relocated offices,
including relocating the Regional Office to Ketchikan, and
provides for implementation by January 1, 2000. Further, the
Committee expects the workforce plan to reflect the full
participation of affected Southeast Alaska communities, and
to include a community by community assessment of economic
impacts and the rationale used by the Regional Forester to
distribute federal jobs under the workforce plan. The
Committee expects that the workforce plan will emphasize
retention of personnel experience in Southeast Alaska's
multiple use mission, will make maximum use of local hiring
authority, and will be submitted to committees of
jurisdiction in both the House and the Senate by March 1,
1998 for review and further guidance, if warranted. Any
expenditures at the Regional Office in excess of $17.5
million from the funds provided to the Region shall be
preceded by a 60-day notification of the Appropriations
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I believe that this language will provide direction to the Forest
Service to allocate funds in a fashion that will come closer to
assuring full implementation of the Tongass land management plan.
This approach will materially improve Forest Service operations in
Alaska. During our oversight process, we discovered that over the last
6 years the Agency has increased the amount of funds consumed in the
Regional Office from an average of 18 percent of annual Regional
appropriations to something closer to 30 percent. This has diminished
the Agency's field capability. Now, with the TLMP complete

[[Page S9510]]

it should be the Forest Service's intention to focus more of the
funding and effort at the field level.
Should the conferees be agreeable to adopting the language that we
are including in the Senate bill, I would hope that conference report
language could be included which directs the Forest Service to tailor
its work force and organization appropriately.
I would hope that the conferees note that expenditures on regional
office operations and centralized field costs at the regional
headquarters have risen to 30 percent from 18 percent of annual
appropriated funds since 1993.
I trust that everyone recognizes that the reduced timber volume
offered under the new TLMP plan will create economic hardships for
local communities and that imbalanced distribution of remaining Federal
jobs and spending in the region may compound those hardships.
Accordingly, I would hope that the conference report would direct the
regional Forester to conduct a regional work load study and to develop
a work force plan that ensures high levels of customer service
throughout the region, preserves the regional headquarters in Alaska,
evaluates the need to consolidate and/or relocate offices, including
relocating the regional office to Ketchikan, and provides for
implementation by January 1, 2000.
Further, the workforce plan should reflect the full participation of
affected southeast Alaska communities, and include a community-by-
community assessment of economic impacts and the rationale used by the
regional forester to distribute Federal jobs under the work force plan.
I hope that any work force plan will emphasize retention of personnel
experienced in southeast Alaska's multiple use mission, will make
maximum use of local hiring authority, and will be submitted to
committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate by March 1,
1998, for review and further guidance, if warranted.
Under my amendment, any expenditures at the regional office in excess
of $17.5 million from the funds provided to the region would have to be
preceded by a 60-day notification of the Appropriations Committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives. I believe this language
properly reflects the results of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources oversight efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1217) was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand the Presiding Officer has
certain announcements to make.

____________________