[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

  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 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)

  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 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.

                          ____________________