[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9601-S9627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SMITH-WYDEN AMENDMENT ON COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, included in the manager's amendment is an 
amendment, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, 
Senator Smith, to provide an additional tool in the toolbox, if you 
will, for rural counties who have come under significant hardship in 
funding law enforcement activities covering National Forest lands.
  Most particularly, Mr. President, a number of Oregon counties have 
had their sheriff's office budgets nearly busted by the need to address 
illegal, occasionally violent protests related to Federal timber sales 
and the regular management of National Forest lands in Oregon.
  On nearly every timber sale protest, my office has worked very 
closely with the Forest Service to find help. We have literally shaken 
the Forest Service tree to find additional resources to help small 
counties deal with their heightened law enforcement needs when one of 
these demonstrations occurs.
  While the Forest Service has been helpful, it has not prevented these 
rural counties from incurring, in some cases, nearly their entire 
year's law enforcement budget on just one protracted timber protest.
  Federal receipts must be used by Oregon Counties in the proportion of 
25 percent for schools and 75 percent for roads. This amendment simply 
allows counties to use surplus funds out of the share that is for 
roads, on law enforcement activities associated with the use of public 
roads of the county.
  The Smith-Wyden amendment simply gives these counties--Douglas, Lane, 
Klamath, Jackson, and Josephine--a small tool to help them deal with 
illegal timber demonstrations that are political, and that are related 
to the Federal management of Federal lands. It is patently unfair that 
local

[[Page S9602]]

communities must bear this burden at all, but we believe that this 
amendment will help.
  I want to express my great appreciation to the chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, the ranking 
member of the Interior Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and to 
the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
Senator Bumpers, for working with me and Senator Smith on this 
provision.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment has been reviewed on this 
side, and it is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1241) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1242

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain 
                     land to Lander County, Nevada)

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1242.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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.   . CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA.

       (a) Conveyance.--Not later than the date that is 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, shall convey to Lander County, Nevada, without 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States, subject to all valid existing rights and to the 
     rights of way described in subsection (b), in the property 
     described as T. 32 N., R. 45 E., sec. 18, lots 3, 4, 11, 12, 
     16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Mount Diablo Meridian.
       (b) Rights-of-way.--The property conveyed under subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to--
       (1) the right-of-way for Interstate 80;
       (2) the 33-foot wide right-of-way for access to the Indian 
     cemetery included under Public Law 90-71 (81 Stat. 173); and
       (3) the following rights-of-way granted by the Secretary of 
     the Interior:
       NEV-010937 (powerline).
       NEV-066891 (powerline).
       NEV-35345 (powerline).
       N-7636 (powerline).
       N-56088 (powerline).
       N-57541 (fiber optic cable).
       N-55974 (powerline).
       (c) The property described in this section shall be used 
     for public purposes and should the property be sold or used 
     for other than public purposes, the property shall revert to 
     the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1242) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1243

 (Purpose: To increase funding for payments in lieu of taxes, with an 
                                offset)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Abraham, Levin, and Hatch, and I ask unanimous consent any 
pending amendment be set aside and we consider this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Abraham, 
     Mr. Levin, and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1243.

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

       On page 5, line 8, strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$124,000,000''.
       On page 64, line 16, strike ``$1,346,215,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,342,215,000''.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this allows certain additional funds for 
payment in lieu of taxes, has benefits to counties throughout the 
country, and has an appropriate balance but does not affect the overall 
balance of the bill.
  It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1243) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope we are close to the end. We have 
not yet quite settled the second-degree amendment by Senator Murkowski 
or the first-degree amendment by Senators Stevens and McCain. I don't 
think there are any significant number of other amendments that have 
not yet been dealt with.
  We do have a large number of colloquies, but I will wait to enter 
them until after a vote on final passage. We will try to work out the 
rest of it.
  I notice the Senator from Alaska on the floor, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have not heard back on the Presidio. There was a 
technical amendment pending on the Presidio. I am not aware whether or 
not that has been agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. There is some confusion here about the location of the 
amendment. We are looking for it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And one more on stampede.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it has been submitted for clearance. Would 
the Senator care to suggest the absence of a quorum?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1244

 (Purpose: to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey, at fair 
 market value, certain properties in Clark County, Nevada, to persons 
   who purchased adjacent properties in good faith reliance on land 
      surveys that were subsequently determined to be inaccurate)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Bryan, for 
     himself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1244.

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

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . Conveyance of Certain Bureau of Land Management 
     Lands in Clark County, Nevada--
       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) certain landowners who own property adjacent to land 
     managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the North Decatur 
     Boulevard area of Las Vegas, Nevada, bordering on North Las 
     Vegas, have been adversely affected by certain erroneous 
     private land surveys that the landowners believed were 
     accurate;
       (2) the landowners have occupied or improved their property 
     in good faith reliance on the erroneous surveys of the 
     properties;

[[Page S9603]]

       (3) the landowners believed that their entitlement to 
     occupancy was finally adjudicated by a Judgment and Decree 
     entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada on 
     October 26, 1989;
       (4) errors in the private surveys were discovered in 
     connection with a dependent resurvey and section subdivision 
     conducted by the Bureau of Land Management in 1990, which 
     established accurate boundaries between certain Federally 
     owned properties and private properties; and
       (5) the Secretary has authority to sell, and it is 
     appropriate that the Secretary should sell, at fair market 
     value, the properties described in section 2(b) to the 
     adversely affected landowners.
       (b) Conveyance of Properties.
       (1) Purchase offers--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, on 
     behalf of the owners of real property located adjacent to the 
     properties described in paragraph (2), may submit to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Secretary''), a written offer to purchase the properties.
       (B) Information to accompany offer--An offer under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be accompanied by--
       (i) a description of each property offered to be purchased;
       (ii) information relating to the claim of ownership of the 
     property based on an erroneous land survey; and
       (iii) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Description of Properties--The properties described in 
     this paragraph, containing 68.60 acres, more or less, are--
       (A) Government lots 22, 23, 26, and 27 in sec. 18, T. 19 
     S., R 61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian;
       (B) Government lots 20, 21, and 24 in sec. 19, T. 19 S., R. 
     61 E., Mount Diablo Meridian; and
       (C) Government lot 1 in sec. 24, T. 19 S., R. 60 E., Mount 
     Diablo Meridian.
       (3) Conveyance--
       (A) In general--Subject to the condition stated in 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall convey to the city of 
     Las Vegas, Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the properties offered to be 
     purchased under paragraph (1) on payment by the city of the 
     fair market value of the properties, based on an appraisal of 
     the fair market value as of December 1, 1982, approved by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Condition--Properties shall be conveyed under 
     subparagraph (A) subject to the condition that the city 
     convey the properties to the landowners who were adversely 
     affected by reliance on erroneous surveys as described in 
     subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1244) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1245

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1245.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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:

       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     payment for facilities, equipment, and interests destroyed by 
     the Federal Government at the Stampede Mine Site within the 
     boundaries of Denali National Park, (1) the Secretary of the 
     Interior, within existing funds designated by this Act for 
     expenditure for Departmental Management, shall by September 
     15, 1998: (A) provide funds subject to an appraisal in 
     accordance with standard appraisal methods, not to exceed 
     $500,000.00 to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of 
     Mineral Engineering; and, (B) shall remove mining equipment 
     at the Stampede Mine Site identified by the School of Mineral 
     Engineering to a site specified by the School of Mineral 
     Engineering; and, (2) the Secretary of the Army shall 
     provide, at no cost, two six by six vehicles, in excellent 
     operating condition, or equivalent equipment to the 
     University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering 
     and shall construct a bridge across the Bull River to the 
     Golden Zone Mine Site to allow ingress and egress for the 
     activities conducted by the School of Mineral Engineering. 
     Upon transfer of the funds, mining equipment, and the 
     completion of all work designated by this section, the 
     University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering 
     shall convey all remaining rights and interests in the 
     Stampede Mine Site to the Secretary of the Interior.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe this is the Stampede Creek 
Mine amendment. I am not sure of the status of the issue, other than I 
believe the minority has agreed to it and it has been discussed. There 
was a question by the occupant of the chair and by the Senator from 
Arizona.
  In 1987, the Federal Government, through the Park Service, blew up 
the University of Alaska's mine. This was a mine that was a working 
model. It was in Denali National Park. It had been donated to the 
University of Alaska School of Mines by a man by the name of Earl 
Pilgrim who, in 1942, purchased the claim and continued to operate the 
mine--it was an antimony mine--until 1972. At one time, the mine was 
the second-largest producer of antimony in the United States. It was 
located in an isolated section of the park preserve. The Stampede Mine 
was found to be eligible for listing in the National Register of 
Historic Places on June 20, 1989.
  Today, the mine site contains--excuse me, did contain several 
historic workable structures. The site is rich in equipment, machinery, 
tools, and the myriad objects that make up the stuff of a mining camp. 
Many of these items are unique to the Pilgrim's operation and reflect 
on his own inventiveness and mechanical skills.
  In 1979, Stampede Mines, LTD, entered into negotiations with the 
National Park Service and the University of Alaska. As a result of 
those negotiations, the mining company made a donation to the National 
Park Service of the surface rights including road access from the 
airstrip, the historic buildings, water rights, and stream banks.
  It was believed at the time that the National Park Service possessed 
the wherewithal to better maintain and protect the valuable historic 
structures. Unfortunately, in 1987, history would record that there was 
very little merit to this line of thinking.
  At the same time, the University of Alaska Fairbanks' School of 
Mineral Engineering was donated all the mining rights, mining 
equipment, and fixtures, with mineral development restrictions for the 
education of students.
  Mr. President, the mineral development restrictions included 
provisions which allowed for only educational use of the mineral 
estate. No commercial mining would be allowed, only small-scale 
educational mining, and even though the buildings, roads, trails, and 
airstrips were owned by the Park Service, the university is responsible 
for maintaining them.
  The School of Mineral Engineering was most pleased with the 
arrangement and looked forward to providing their mining students a 
unique opportunity to learn firsthand about earlier- to present-day 
mining operations and equipment by having the mining mill to actually 
operate for the students. Given the chance, they would like the 
opportunity to conduct such an education program in the future.
  The educational program is consistent with the intent of the 
university's receipt of the property. The School of Mineral Engineering 
has developed a meaningful program that provides for initiating 
activities associated with instruction-investigation about 
environmentally sound mineral exploration and mining techniques in a 
sensitive natural environment, as well as studying the geology, 
biology, and ecology of the area, and studying the historical aspects 
of the mine.
  The program has already helped the mineral industry develop methods 
to explore for and develop minerals on lands located in sensitive areas 
throughout Alaska, even on land controlled by the Department of the 
Interior.
  Mr. President, it was to be an absolute win for the National Park 
Service and a win in the field of education for the university. No one 
in their worst nightmares, would have believed that the National Park 
Service could blow this opportunity.
  During 1986-87 National Park Service personnel conducted field 
inspections of old mining sites located on their lands for the purposes 
of identifying potentially contaminated sites and hazardous conditions.
  Toward the end of July 1986, the Stampede Creek site was examined. 
The inspectors recommended immediate action to examine the safety of 
old blasting caps and chemicals at the site. Before taking any action, 
the inspectors recommended that the ownership issue be resolved.

[[Page S9604]]

  In other words, Mr. President, someone actually considered private 
property. The matter was treated as serious, but not an emergency or 
life-threatening. Nothing further occurred for 8 months.
  Subsequently, National Park Service personnel and members of the U.S. 
Army's explosive ordnance detonation team arrived, unannounced, at the 
Stampede Mine site and on April 30, 1987, changed the configuration of 
the mine site and its historic structures.
  Mr. President, they moved 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate--private 
property of the University--and placed it on top of the still frozen 
Stampede Creek. Ammonium nitrate may sound dangerous but in its 
packaged state it is nothing more than common fertilizer.
  They piled 4,000 pounds of fertilizer on top of the creek and added 
several half gallon bottles of acid-more private property which they 
retrieved from the assay lab. Finally they added 45 pounds of high 
explosives--set the charge and left the area.
  Mr. President, let me refer to the pictures on my right which show 
the Stampede Mine prior to this episode of the Park Service and the 
U.S. Army ordinance detonation team.
  This is the Stampede Creek. This is the mill and the mine. The mine 
is back here in the hills. This is where the concentrates are 
recovered, and so forth. The pictures show the facilities before the 
explosion occurred.
  I am going to show you the next chart which shows you what happened 
when the Park Service finished their work. This is what the mine and 
the mill looked like. As you can see, it is totally devastated by the 
blast.
  When the smoke cleared and all the debris fell back to the earth, 
they found that the explosion left a crater in the creek 28 feet wide 
and 8 feet deep. They also noticed a substantial change in the mining 
site, which is depicted by this photograph.
  Let me show you again the creek which indicates the significance of 
what this crater did to this stream bed. You can imagine a hole 28 feet 
wide and 8 feet deep. And this creek flows down into the watershed that 
flows into the Tanana River which flows into the Yukon River, obviously 
polluting and killing fish along the way.
  The Park Service did it, Mr. President.
  In addition to the mine entrance and mill, damage occurred to other 
buildings, trees, landscape, and stream bed. The bombing also blew up a 
5,000 ton tailings pile which by using USGS records for the current 
price of metals would be worth approximately $600,000 in place. 
Unfortunately the heavy metals of the tailings pile were last seen 
moving from the site and being scattered throughout the environment by 
the force of the blast.
  One of the most telling reports concerning this debacle is from the 
U.S. Army incident report No. 176-23-87 which stated that the NPS 
personnel were aware that detonation would result in damage to the 
surrounding buildings and according to Sergeant Seutter ``at no time 
was it relayed to me that damage was unacceptable.
  Mr. President, violations of the law are clear. There are violations 
of the Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act involving wetlands, not to mention the taking and 
destruction of private property.
  Further, since the explosion, approximately $2 million worth of 
mining equipment, some historic, has been damaged or destroyed due to 
exposure to inclement weather and the normal Alaska freeze and thaw 
cycles.
  What I find equally outrageous is the fact that no one from the 
National Park Service has, until most recently, said ``I am sorry''.
  To be fair, during the course of the last 2 years the NPS has been 
working with the university in an attempt to allow the university to 
continue its educational program. Unfortunately, the site in its 
reconformed condition lacks the historic integrity and lure that it 
once possessed.
  The university has located another historic mine site outside of the 
national park boundaries that can meet the needs and requirements of 
the university, its curriculum, and its students.
  Mr. President, my amendment does not attempt to rectify all the wrong 
that has been done. If we were to pass legislation, or use the court 
system, to right the wrong that has been accomplished, the cost would 
be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of the historic mining 
equipment loss due to the explosion and subsequent neglect is cost-
prohibitive to replace.
  My amendment would direct the Secretary: subject to an appraisal--and 
I emphasize ``appraisal''--to provide up to $500,000.00 to the 
University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Mineral Engineering; and, 
remove certain salvageable historic mining equipment to a location that 
will be convenient for the university to pick it up and move it to a 
mine site outside of the park boundary.
  One would question, ``Well, what is the justification for this 
action?'' There is none. The Federal Government blew up private 
property, and the Federal Government should be held responsible and 
make restitution.
  My amendment would require the U.S. Army: to provide two six by six 
vehicles to the School of Mineral Engineering; and, to construct a 
bridge across the Bull River at the Golden Mine site to allow unimpeded 
ingress and egress for the activities conducted by the School.
  My amendment will ensure that all remaining rights and interests in 
the Stampede Mine site held by the university would be conveyed to the 
National Park Service, which is the wish of the Park Service.
  Mr. President, passage of this amendment, and its subsequent 
enactment into law, will ensure us that justice in this matter will 
have been served and we will be able to put this incident behind us. 
All accounts will have been satisfied.
  Mr. President, the difficulty in asking the Park Service to meet 
their obligation as in stating ``may'' and mandate that they actually 
perform by stating ``shall'' is the difference between action and no 
action. We have encouraged the Park Service. We have asked the Park 
Service. And now it is time to direct the Park Service to right this 
wrong because they blew up private property belonging to the University 
of Alaska School of Mines. This amendment would attempt to rectify that 
situation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, very briefly, I don't know about the 
particular merits of the project. But I do consider the specific 
earmark for a certain sum of money. If this is going to proceed on the 
floor, I think we ought to have a rollcall vote on it. So, if it is 
sought to pass by unanimous consent, I will be objecting to that and 
ask that we have a rollcall vote on this specific earmark for a certain 
set amount of money.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is what I would propose.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a 
cosponsor on the Abraham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we have one amendment by the Senator from 
Alaska on the Presidio that can be accepted. Then I believe the Senator 
from Alaska is going to withdraw his second-degree amendment to the 
Stevens-McCain amendment. We can pass the Stevens-McCain amendment by 
voice vote. Then I would suggest that we have stacked votes on the 
Murkowski amendment that has just been debated, followed immediately by 
a vote on final passage of the bill.
  That is my suggestion, if we can get those other unanimous consents 
ahead of time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                      Amendment No. 1232 Withdrawn

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the discussion we 
have had, it is my understanding that we have been able to address many 
of the concerns associated with the discussion on the $1.6 billion from 
oil leases from offshore Alaska.
  So it is my intention to withdraw my amendment.
  Further, it is my understanding that Senator Gorton agrees with me 
that

[[Page S9605]]

the additional $800 million should be captured through legislation in 
the authorizing committee.
  I understand the floor manager would support that.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.


                     Amendment No. 1232, withdrawn

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. With that assurance, I would withdraw my second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. I believe I have to withdraw my motion to table that 
second-degree amendment, which I do.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1232 is 
withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  Mr. GORTON. Now I think we can by voice vote accept the underlying 
first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1231.
  The amendment (No. 1231) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1246

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Murkowski relating to the Presidio that has been cleared on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1246.

  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 add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . Delete section 103(c)(7) of Public Law 104-333 
     and replace with the following:
       ``(7) Staff.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     the Trust is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation 
     and duties and terminate the services of an executive 
     director and such other officers and employees as it deems 
     necessary without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code or other laws related to the appointment, 
     compensation or termination of federal employees.''.

  Mr. GORTON. I have already explained the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1246) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1245

  Mr. GORTON. Now, Mr. President, I believe that the leaders approve of 
it.
  The question is the Murkowski amendment. It is a debated amendment.
  Does the proponent of the amendment want to ask a rollcall on it or 
the opponent?
  Is not the question before the body now the Murkowski amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the 
Murkowski amendment No. 1245.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. On that amendment I ask for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
  Now there appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Before we have a vote on that, I ask unanimous consent 
that we adopt all further committee amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments on page 46, line 15 through page 47, line 
25; page 115, line 1 through line 22; and page 123, line 9 through page 
124, line 20, as amended were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the Murkowski amendment? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1245. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the 
Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent 
due to a death in the family
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hollings
     Kohl
     McCain
     Santorum
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Harkin
     Moynihan
     Smith (OR)
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 1245) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Title V--Priority Land Acquisitions and Exchanges

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise today to speak about Title V of H.R. 2107--the 
Interior Appropriations Bill. Title V provides an additional $700 
million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 
pursuant to the Balanced Budget Agreement, for priority land 
acquisitions and exchanges. While I had sought to have more money 
appropriated to the state-side LWCF matching grant program, I commend 
Senator Gorton for appropriating this $700 million in a manner 
consistent with the terms and spirit of the LWCF Act.
  Over 30 years ago, in a remarkable bipartisan effort, Congress and 
the President created the LWCF. The LWCF provides funds for the 
purchase of federal land by the land management agencies--the federal-
side LWCF program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal, 
state, and local

[[Page S9606]]

governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation areas and 
facilities--the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The LWCF is 
funded primarily from off-shore oil and gas leasing revenues which now 
exceed $3 billion annually, and has been authorized through the year 
2015 at an annual ceiling of $900 million.
  However, LWCF monies must be annually appropriated. And, despite the 
increase in offshore oil and gas revenues, the LWCF has not fared well 
in this decade. Expenditures from the LWCF have fluctuated widely over 
its life but have generally ranged from $200 to $300 million per year. 
In the 1990s, total appropriations to both the federal and state sides 
of LWCF steadily declined from a high of $341 million during the Bush 
Administration to $149 million in FY 1997.
  Most significantly, all of the FY 1997 appropriation was for the 
exclusive purpose of federal land acquisition. In 1995, Congress and 
the President agreed to shut-down the state-side LWCF program. For FY 
1998, the President requested $165 million for federal land 
acquisitions and only $1 million for monitoring previously funded 
state-side projects. The President did not request any funds for new 
state-side projects.
  After submitting his budget to Congress, the President appears to 
have seen the value of the LWCF. In the Balanced Budget Agreement, 
Congress and the President agreed to provide an additional $700 million 
for priority land acquisitions and exchanges from the LWCF. President 
Clinton wants all of this additional $700 million spent on Federal land 
acquisitions. He has not requested that any of this additional LWCF 
appropriation be used to fund the state-side LWCF matching grant 
program.


                   Priority Federal Land Acquisitions

  As Senator Domenici stated on the Senate floor, the Balanced Budget 
Agreement, and the accompanying Concurrent Budget Resolution, provide 
no specifics as to how this additional $700 million is to be spent. 
Neither the Balanced Budget Agreement nor the Concurrent Budget 
Resolution mention, by name, any land acquisitions. Rather, 
Congressional leaders intended for this money to be appropriated 
through the normal legislative process. That is what Senator Gorton is 
trying to do in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
  The Clinton Administration has identified two priority Federal land 
acquisitions: the 7500 acre Headwaters Forest property in northern 
California and the 4000 acre New World Mine property in Montana. Last 
year before the election, the Clinton Administration proposed, with 
great fanfare, to acquire both of these properties through land 
exchanges. However, because of the Administration's reluctance to work 
with Congress to consummate these land exchanges, a number of problems 
arose. The President then decided to acquire these properties through 
an outright cash purchase, using $315 million of the additional LWCF 
monies provided in the Balanced Budget Agreement.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee, unlike its House counterpart, 
has agreed to fund these acquisitions. However, it has made this 
appropriation contingent on the enactment of separate authorizing 
legislation.
  As Chairman of the authorizing Committee--the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee--I congratulate the Senate appropriators for 
respecting the role of legislative committees. Title V of H.R. 2107 
honors this historical division of responsibilities among authorizing 
and appropriations committees and the processes of the Senate, and the 
Congress.
  It also acknowledges that Congress needs to, and should, examine the 
details of the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. The 
decisions to acquire these properties were made with no public and 
little Congressional involvement. As a result, a significant number of 
unanswered questions surround both acquisitions. Examination of the 
acquisitions is best done by the authorizing committee.
  As an initial matter, Congress needs to authorize the use of LWCF 
monies. The LWCF Act provides a funding mechanism for the acquisition 
of Federal lands. It does not provide an independent basis for Federal 
land acquisitions. The LWCF Act specifies, with limited exceptions, 
that LWCF monies cannot be used for a Federal land purchase ``unless 
such acquisition is otherwise authorized by law.'' From the information 
available to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the exceptions 
to this prohibition do not apply to either the Headwaters Forest or the 
New World Mine acquisition.
  The Clinton Administration disagrees, contending that site-specific 
authorization for the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions 
is unnecessary because existing statutory authorities allow the Bureau 
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest 
Service to use LWCF monies. Yet, the Administration fails to analyze 
with any specificity exactly how the other authorities apply to the two 
acquisitions and override the provisions of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act.
  For example, the Clinton Administration opines that the Forest 
Service has the authority to purchase the New World Mine property under 
the Weeks Act. However, the Weeks Act was enacted for the purpose of 
acquiring eastern forested land. At the same time, the LWCF Act limits 
the Forest Service's use of LWCF monies for acquisitions ``primarily of 
value for outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is recreation the primary 
value of the New World Mine property? Or, is the primary purpose of the 
acquisition to protect the character of Yellowstone National Park? What 
about the fact that the LWCF Act limits the Forest Service's use of 
LWCF monies west of the 100th meridian? Will the New World Mine 
acquisition, at greater than 4000 acres, run afoul of this limitation?
  Similar unanswered questions surround the Headwaters Forest 
acquisition. The Clinton Administration states that the Headwaters 
Forest would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. However, BLM 
is required to use LWCF monies for land acquisitions which are 
consistent with the applicable land use plan and ``necessary for the 
property management of public lands which are primarily of value for 
outdoor recreation purposes.'' Is the acquisition of the Headwaters 
Forest even addressed in the applicable land use plan? Is it the 
Clinton Administration's position that the primary value of the 
Headwaters Forest is outdoor recreation? If so, how will the public 
access this new recreation resource? Or, because the Headwaters Forest 
has been identified as critical habitat under the Endangered Species 
Act, is the Administration relying on the ESA as authorization for the 
acquisition? Does it then make sense for the property to be managed by 
the BLM? Is it the Administration's position that the ESA authorizes 
the acquisition of any and all private property containing endangered 
or threatened species and overrides the limitations in the LWCF Act?

  All of these questions need to be answered before the Congress 
accepts the Clinton Administration's assertion that existing laws 
authorize the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and the New World 
Mine and override the prohibitions in the LWCF Act. The Committee of 
jurisdiction is in the best position to conduct such an examination.
  Moreover, even if the Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine can be 
acquired by the President without the enactment of separate authorizing 
legislation, Congressional authorization of the agreements is needed to 
avoid other statutory requirements normally applicable to Federal land 
purchases. Because the purchase prices for both the Headwaters Forest 
and the New World Mine were the result of negotiation and dependent, in 
part, on other terms, the actual fair market value of the properties is 
unknown.
  With respect to the New World Mine, a 1995 National Park Service 
report estimates the fair market value of the property is less than $50 
million. The Clinton Administration has agreed to purchase the property 
for $65 million.
  As to the Headwaters Forest, there is enormous discrepancy as to the 
property's value. The current owner contends the property has a value 
in excess of $700 million. A 1993 Forest Service appraisal values the 
property at $500 million. However, a 1996 analysis of the property 
conducted for the Department of Justice concludes that the property has 
a value between $20 million, applying current environmental 
restrictions, and $250 million, without any environmental restrictions. 
The

[[Page S9607]]

Headwaters Forest property will be acquired for $380 million in cash 
and property.
  Moreover, the Clinton Administration apparently wants to ensure that 
the fair market value of the properties is never determined. On June 9, 
1997, President Clinton submitted an amendment to his FY 1998 Interior 
Appropriations budget request to reflect the $700 million in LWCF 
monies included in the Balanced Budget Agreement. The recommended 
statutory language specifically references the negotiated purchase 
prices for the two acquisitions.
  The accompanying budget justification states ``by ratifying the 
specific lands to be acquired and the purchase prices contained in 
those negotiated agreements, these provisions would also obviate the 
need for the United States to undertake additional and costly 
appraisals under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Act.'' The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Act requires an appraisal of the fair market value of 
private property the Federal government desires to acquire, whether 
through negotiations or condemnation. One of the primary purposes of 
this Act is to guarantee that any Federal land purchase is a good deal 
for the American taxpayer.
  It is bad precedent for Congress to bless the Administration's 
blatant disregard of this law. Congress needs to examine, and determine 
for itself, the fair market value of these properties and, whether or 
not the purchases are a good deal for the American taxpayer. This 
examination is properly done in the context of authorizing legislation.
  The magnitude of these acquisitions make the disregard of this law 
even more troubling. As noted in the Senate Appropriations Committee 
report accompanying H.R. 2107, the $315 million spent to acquire the 
two properties is more than the total amount appropriated from the LWCF 
for land acquisitions over the past two years. Those appropriations 
have been used to acquire dozens of properties--the vast majority of 
which cost less than $1 million. None of them have been excluded from 
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act. 
The Clinton Administration needs to explain to Congress why the 
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions warrant an exemption 
from the law.
  Congressional authorization is further needed because the Clinton 
Administration has committed the Federal government to more than the 
purchase of property.
  The New World Mine agreement requires that $22.5 million of the $65 
million purchase price be used to finance the clean-up of the property 
which is contaminated from historic mining activities in the area. 
However, LWCF monies are not authorized for environmental clean-ups.
  While the Clinton Administration contends sufficient authorization 
exists for it to use LWCF monies to acquire the New World Mine 
property, nowhere does it argue that it may use $22.5 million of this 
LWCF appropriation for financing a private party's CERCLA-type cleanup. 
Whatever the contours of the debate over the proper uses and purposes 
of the LWCF Act, it is clear Congress never intended for the LWCF to be 
used as an environmental contamination insurance account. Yet, such an 
impermissible use is precisely what the Administration now proposes. 
Congress clearly needs to review and authorize such a use of LWCF 
monies.
  At the same time, the Agreement to purchase the Headwaters Forest 
requires that the Federal government and the property seller agree to a 
habitat conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act for timber 
harvesting activities which will occur on the remaining 200,000 acres 
owned by the company. In fact, because of difficulties in negotiating 
an acceptable habitat conservation plan for this property, the timber 
company sued the Federal government. However, if the Federal government 
and company agree to a habitat conservation plan, and the Federal 
government purchases the property, the company's case against the 
Federal government will be dismissed. To date, no such agreement has 
been reached. I question, however, whether it is good public policy to 
settle litigation in this manner.
  I have touched upon some of the issues raised by the two 
acquisitions. I have not talked about the Clinton Administration's 
failure to acquire the properties through land exchanges, as originally 
proposed. Questions also exist about how, and at what cost, the Federal 
government will manage the properties upon acquisition.
  We have held no hearings on the New World Mine acquisition. We have 
held no hearings on the Headwaters Forest acquisition. Congress had no 
input into the decision to acquire them. In fact, most of us know 
little about the two proposals. We owe it to the American taxpayer to 
review these acquisitions--a review best done by the authorizing 
Committee.


                 state-side LWCF matching grant program

  I also want to comment on the appropriation contained in H.R. 2107 
for the state-side LWCF matching grant program. The state-side LWCF 
program has played a vital role in providing recreational and 
educational opportunities to millions of Americans. State-side LWCF 
grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and recreation 
projects in all fifty states, including campgrounds, trails, and open 
space.
  The availability of outdoor recreation facilities is critical to the 
well-being of Americans. People who participate in outdoor recreation 
activities, are happier and healthier. Recreation is an important 
component of our economy. Moreover, while trips to our National Parks 
create experiences and memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day-
out, people recreate close to home. In Fiscal Year 1995, the last year 
for which the state-side LWCF grant program was funded, there were 
nearly 3800 applications for state-side grants. Unfortunately, there 
was only enough money to fund 500 projects. In the intervening three 
years, the local and state demand for those resources has only 
increased.
  That is why state-side LWCF grants are so important. State-side LWCF 
grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor 
recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for 
state-side LWCF grants, they provide vital seed-money which local 
communities use to forge partnerships with private entities.
  Unlike the Clinton Administration, the Interior Appropriations 
Committee has recognized the value of the state-side LWCF matching 
grant program. It appropriated $100 million to the program over the 
next four years and noted, in its report, that ``resource protection is 
not solely the responsibility nor the domain of the Federal Government, 
and that States can in many cases extract greater value from moneys'' 
appropriated from the LWCF. I congratulate Senator Gorton on this 
appropriation and am optimistic that this provision will remain in 
Conference.
  I have attached to my statement, for inclusion in the Record, two 
recent resolutions. The first, from the National Governors' 
Association, calls on the Federal government to revive the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund state-side matching grant program. This bill 
does that. The second letter, from the National Recreation and Park 
Association, urges the Senate to support the $100 million appropriation 
contained in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that these items be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.

                          Recreation Resources


                                Preamble

       The Governors believe that participation in outdoor 
     recreation provides important physical, mental, and social 
     benefits to the American public, and that responsibility for 
     providing diverse and high-quality opportunities for such 
     recreation is shared by federal, state, and local government 
     interests and the private sector. Continuing growth in demand 
     for outdoor recreation opportunities has brought overcrowding 
     to some areas, while budgetary constraints, environmental 
     pollution, and conversion of open spaces to other uses has 
     further added to the challenges we face. This is particularly 
     true of resources within physical and economic reach of the 
     majority of urban populations. The expansion, development, 
     and management of recreational space and facilities is an 
     important national challenge that can contribute to both 
     quality of life and the economy. To effectively meet this 
     challenge, federal recreation efforts must be modified to 
     include a far greater emphasis on state

[[Page S9608]]

     and local decisionmaking and on partnerships, particularly 
     with the private sector, than currently exists. The system 
     must also be reinvented to enhance program efficiencies and 
     effective program administration.


                 A Vision for America's Great Outdoors

       The Governors support a vision of a safe, clean, planned, 
     and well-maintained network of recreation areas available to 
     all Americans. Important objectives can be achieved by 
     reviving and strengthening the existing Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery (UPARR) programs. The Governors recognize the 
     valuable work done by the National Park Service Advisory 
     Board report, ``An American Network of Parks and Open 
     Space,'' with its call for a balanced formula for ensuring 
     state, local, and national funding allocations to meet the 
     nation's diverse needs for recreation resources. In addition, 
     the Governors support continuing substantial funding for 
     recreation programs through appropriations for the federal 
     land-management agencies and through the expenditure of 
     monies at the federal and state levels under programs such as 
     the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund. The Governors also encourage the continued use of 
     private capital for investment in recreation facilities on 
     public lands and further encourage increased funding for 
     operational expenditures for recreation facilities and 
     services through general fund appropriations and recreation 
     fees paid by those who directly use those facilities and 
     services. To ensure that recreation funds are spent wisely, 
     the Governors believe that, at every level of government, an 
     effort should be made to understand and accommodate 
     recreationists' needs and interests.


                           guiding principles

       The Governors believe that the creation and maintenance of 
     a nationwide network of recreation areas should be guided by 
     the following principles.
       Priorities for spending funds must come from a sustained 
     effort to understand the needs of recreationists on the part 
     of those involved in local, state, and national planning 
     activities. State and local recreation resources planning 
     activities, including comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, 
     should continue to be a foundation for decisionmaking. The 
     Governors encourage a revitalized LWCF/UPARR program to 
     streamline federal requirements currently imposed on such 
     state planning and granting processes. At the same time, the 
     Governors acknowledge the importance of an open, public 
     process for allocating grants-in-aid and support continuation 
     of this important tool for effective citizen participation.
       To assist in a better determination of national priorities 
     and their interaction with the expressed priorities of state 
     and local governments, the Governors also encourage 
     integration of federal recreation resource planning processes 
     with their state and local counterparts.
       Programs for land conservation, preservation of cultural 
     landscapes, and recreation resource development require a 
     shared partnership among citizens, private landowners, all 
     levels of governments, and private organizations.
       The equity of private property owners must be respected in 
     the implementation of recreation and conservation programs.
       As the nation's recreation resources investments are made, 
     the Governors encourage continued attention to providing 
     quality recreation opportunities to all citizens, reflecting 
     the diverse needs for recreation that is safe, accessible, 
     affordable, enjoyable, and open.
       National strategies and programs that aid state and local 
     governments should be flexible, effective, and efficient.
       The long-term future of our nation's recreation resources 
     is dependent on a citizenry that is both familiar with and 
     appreciative of these resources. Programs that promote such 
     understanding and appreciation should be encouraged in both 
     the private and public sector.


                                funding

       The Governors believe that Congress should encourage the 
     provision of adequate and predictable funding for the 
     nation's outdoor recreation resources from both private and 
     public sources.
       The Governors support the principle that nonrenewable 
     resources leaving federal ownership, such as oil and gas 
     recovered from the Outer Continental Shelf, should be used as 
     a means to establish assets of lasting value to the nation.
       The Governors recommend that Congress make available no 
     less than 60 percent of funds for state and local governments 
     with the balance to federal agencies to be used by both 
     principally for the purposes of acquiring outdoor recreation 
     areas and providing for and protecting outdoor recreation 
     opportunities. The Governors also support increased private 
     investment in recreation facilities on public lands.
       The Governors believe it is imperative to adequately 
     maintain public recreation lands and the facilities on them. 
     The Governors recommend that, in addition to general fund 
     revenues, where appropriate and practicable, user fees and 
     private sector funding should be considered to help achieve 
     this objective. The Governors strongly recommend that LWCF 
     not be used for these purposes.


                 federal responsibility and partnership

       Federally managed public lands and resources serve a 
     critical function in meeting national recreational needs, not 
     only in providing opportunities for outdoor recreation but in 
     providing the means, through the Federal Lands Highway 
     Program, to access and enjoy those opportunities. Federal 
     agencies should develop comprehensive outdoor recreation 
     resource use and access plans in consultation with state and 
     local governments and coordinate their planning with the 
     recreation resource needs identified by state and local 
     governments and private organizations. New federal 
     institutional arrangements are needed to give greater 
     visibility and authority to recreational program 
     administration on federal lands and to foster innovative 
     state, local, and private program partnerships. The 
     efficiency and effectiveness of federal recreational support 
     can be enhanced.


                         railroad rights-of-way

       The Governors believe that where it is consistent with 
     state law and respects the rights of adjacent landowners, it 
     is in the public interest to conserve and maintain abandoned 
     railroad corridors whenever suitable for use as public trails 
     and greenways, for other public purposes, or for possible 
     future rail use. Such efforts can help achieve the goal of 
     the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors of 
     establishing ``a continuous network of recreation corridors . 
     . . across the country.''


                             scenic byways

       The Governors believe that funding for the National Scenic 
     Byway Program, which recognizes the economic and social value 
     of fostering travel on the nation's most scenic routes, one 
     of the most popular forms of recreation in the country, 
     should be continued.


                  user-pay/user-benefit grant programs

       The Governors believe that grant programs that return fees 
     paid by users, for example, federal gasoline taxes or excise 
     taxes on specific products, to programs which directly 
     benefit those users, should be continued. Examples include 
     the programs funded under the Pittman-Robertson Act, the 
     Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, and the National Recreational 
     Trails Fund.
                                  ____

                                           National Recreation and


                                             Park Association,

                                  Ashburn, VA, September 10, 1997.

               An Open Letter to the United States Senate

       You will soon have an opportunity to vote on fiscal year 
     1998 appropriations for the Department of the Interior. The 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund state assistance program is 
     among the many important initiatives that you will consider. 
     We urge you to approve not less than the $100 million 
     appropriation for LWCF state assistance recommended by the 
     Senate appropriations committee in its version of H.R. 2107.
       The LWCF state assistance program addresses the health and 
     welfare of our nation's citizens. By matching state and local 
     resources to complete priority projects for individual 
     communities across the nation, these resources provide access 
     to recreation and conservation opportunities for all American 
     citizens.They are the playgrounds where our children run and 
     shout. They are the swimming pools and playing fields where 
     we learn the values of teamwork, sportsmanship, hard work and 
     competition. They are the parks, picnic areas, pathways and 
     wild places where we find quiet and renew our connection with 
     the natural world. These places restore our minds and bodies 
     and enhance our quality of life. And most importantly, they 
     are accessible. They are down the street, across town, at the 
     metro stop and affordable regardless of economic status. This 
     is what sets these state and local investments apart from our 
     nation's great national parks, forests, refuges and public 
     lands. And this is why they are so important.
       After two years without LWCF state assistance, thousands of 
     opportunities for conservation and recreation have been 
     delayed or lost. Restoring this program will allow projects 
     with available matching funds to move forward. It will also 
     renew the nation's commitment to its people to reinvest a 
     portion of revenues from the depletion of our energy 
     resources in state and local, as well as federal, recreation 
     resources. We hope we can count on your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     R. Dean Tice,
                                               Executive Director.

   requiring land management agencies to prioritize additional land 
                              acquisitions

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to explain 
to my colleagues an amendment I had intended to offer to the fiscal 
year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill. I was persuaded not to offer 
the amendment because of my concern that opening up the section of the 
bill which provides an additional $700 million for land acquisitions 
and exchanges would embolden those who would earmark these funds for 
particular projects, without consideration of the priorities of our 
Federal land management agencies. Therefore, I decided not to offer the 
amendment at this time.
  I do intend to pursue this proposal as separate legislation, and I 
solicit the comments of my colleagues concerning this proposal, 
described below.

[[Page S9609]]

  The amendment would require the administration to utilize certain 
criteria in preparing the prioritized list of land acquisitions and 
exchanges that would be conducted using the $700 million increase 
recommended in this bill for Federal land acquisitions and exchanges. 
This amendment places primary responsibility for determining the 
priority of land acquisitions in the hands of the Federal land 
management agencies charged with preserving, protecting, and managing 
our nation's natural resources. At the same time, the amendment 
preserves the prerogative of Congress to approve or disapprove the 
administration's recommendations prior to making any of these 
additional funds available.
  The amendment establishes seven specific criteria to be used by the 
National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management in assessing proposed 
acquisitions and exchanges:
  (1) the natural resources located on the land,
  (2) the degree to which those natural resources are threatened,
  (3) the length of time required for acquisition of the land,
  (4) the extent, if any, to which an increase in land cost makes 
timely completion of the acquisition advisable,
  (5) the extent of public and local government support for the 
acquisition,
  (6) the amount of federal lands already in the region, and
  (7) the total estimated costs of the acquisition.
  In addition, the amendment permits the Secretaries of Interior and 
Agriculture to consider additional matters in their assessments, but 
they must explain to Congress in a report what those additional 
considerations were and how they were weighted in the prioritization of 
land proposals.
  Over the years, Congress has wisely taken steps to preserve our 
natural heritage. We have protected many remarkable natural areas 
through the establishment of national parks, monuments, wilderness 
areas, wildlife refuges, national scenic areas, and other conservation 
efforts.
  While this Nation has no shortage of beautiful country to be 
preserved and protected, there is a limited amount of funding available 
to accomplish these goals. As a result, our Nation has a multibillion 
dollar backlog in land acquisitions at both the Department of Interior 
and the Department of Agriculture. Because of this enormous backlog, I 
support the recommendation in this bill to make available an additional 
$700 million for the land acquisitions and exchanges, consistent with 
the budget agreement.
  What this amendment would require the administration to do is not 
new. The agencies already produce these types of rankings when 
developing the President's budget request. The Bureau of Land 
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, 
and the Forest Service all compose priority based lists. In this case, 
we will be requiring the agencies to perform the same sort of priority 
assessments on projects that would be funded with these additional 
funds, to ensure that Congress has all the information necessary to 
review the administration's proposal.
  The amendment includes a requirement for the agencies to consider the 
extent of local support for an acquisition proposal, as well as the 
amount of land in the area already owned by the Federal Government. 
Preservation of our natural resources is a high priority, but it must 
be balanced with an awareness of the economic needs of local 
communities and their ability to plan for future growth and 
development. These two criteria will ensure that a community will not 
be harmed unnecessarily by the removal of preservation lands from its 
tax base or by undue restrictions on development and economic growth.
  I understand the concerns expressed by the committee in the report 
language about the costs of managing and maintaining current federally 
owned lands, and I believe the agencies should focus on acquisition and 
exchange proposals that would consolidate Federal land holdings and 
eliminate inholdings to lessen these costs. However, I think it would 
be a mistake to fail to consider funding new acquisitions and exchanges 
that would protect and preserve resources that might otherwise be lost 
to development in the near future.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned that the committee has earmarked 
$315 million for the additional funding for two specific projects--the 
Headwaters Forest and New World Mines acquisitions. I am not seeking to 
strike those earmarks in this amendment, although I understand an 
amendment may be offered to do so, which I would support. 
Unfortunately, these earmarks make clear the need for established 
criteria for prioritizing the many pending acquisition requests at our 
land management agencies. My amendment would ensure that all funds 
which are available for pending land acquisitions and exchanges are 
used prudently and for the highest priority projects identified by 
Federal land management agencies.

  Let me stress that I understand the right of Congress to review and 
revise the President's budget request, as we see fit. My amendment is 
simply intended to help us make those decisions by requiring input from 
the Federal land management agencies on the expenditure of the $700 
million we are adding to this appropriations bill for land acquisitions 
and exchanges. Congress will still have the last word.
  Mr. President, as I stated at the outset, I intend to pursue separate 
legislation to require the administration to submit annually with the 
budget request a list of proposed land acquisitions and exchanges, 
coordinated and prioritized among the four Federal land management 
agencies. The agencies would be required to consider the criteria set 
forth in the amendment described above, and the Secretaries of Interior 
and Agriculture would be required to explain the relative weight given 
each criterion, including additional criteria selected by the 
administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I had 
intended to propose to this legislation be printed in the Record at 
this point. And I welcome the comments and suggestions of my colleagues 
for improving these criteria and the process of ensuring that scarce 
resources for land preservation are used prudently.
  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On page 134, beginning on line 2, strike ``Provided'' and 
     all follows through ``heading'' on line 8 and insert the 
     following: ``Provided'' That the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
     heads of the National Park Service, the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 
     Forest Service, shall jointly submit to Congress a report 
     listing the lands and interests in land, in order of 
     priority, that the Secretaries propose for acquisition or 
     exchange using funds provided under this heading; Provided 
     further; That in determining the order of priority, the 
     Secretaries shall consider with respect to each property the 
     following: the natural resources located on the property; the 
     degree to which a natural resource on the property is 
     threatened, the length of time required to consummate the 
     acquisition or exchange; the extent to which an increase in 
     the cost of the property makes timely completion of the 
     acquisition or exchange advisable; the extent of public 
     support for the acquisition or exchange (including support of 
     local governments and members of the public); the total 
     estimated costs associated the acquisition or exchange; the 
     extent of current Federal ownership of property in the 
     region; The extent to which the acquisition or exchange would 
     consolidate Federal holdings or eliminate its holding; the 
     owner's willingness to sell or exchange the property; and 
     such other factors as the Secretaries consider appropriate, 
     which factors shall be described in the report in detail; 
     Provided further, That the report shall describe the relative 
     weight accorded to each such factor in determining the 
     priority of acquisitions and exchanges''.
       On page 134, line 12, strike ``a project list to be 
     submitted by the Secretary'' and insert ``the report of the 
     Secretaries.''


                        gas utilization section

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee would be willing to enter into a colloquy with 
me regarding the gas utilization section of this legislation.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that the administration request 
for gas utilization was $4.8 million dollars.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is also my understanding that the House has added 
an additional $2 million above the administration request; and that the 
Senate has agreed to add $1.5m to the administration request.

[[Page S9610]]

  Mr. STEVENS. That is also correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand that some of the additional funds 
Congress has added may be used by the Department of Energy to fund an 
$84 million cost-shared private research project for the development of 
a process for commercialization of a ceramic membrane used to convert 
natural gas to synthetic crude which can then be transported via 
conventional oil transportation systems?
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand that to be correct as well.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee I have taken a keen interest in the development of this 
technology. In fact at a committee hearing in July of this year we 
discussed some of these developing technologies. One thing that is 
becoming clear when you talk about natural gas conversion to liquids is 
that there is ``more than one way to skin a cat.''
  In other words there seem to be a number of companies around the 
globe that are developing this technology with their own particular 
nitch. I would not, at this time try to predict which particular 
process is going to emerge as the best, nor would I attempt to predict 
when this technology will be used on a commercial basis. By some 
industry accounts this technology is here now. By others it is years 
off.

  Would the chairman agree that it makes sense then to possibly look at 
other methods being used to develop this technology.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would defer to the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and agree that it would make sense to look at other 
potential technologies as well.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Would the chairman seek in conference to try and match 
the House level of $2 million and try to preserve flexibility for the 
Department of Energy to support other cost-sharing projects looking at 
ways to convert natural gas to liquids?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the subcommittee chairman, the 
distinguished Senator from Washington would also support this?
  Mr. GORTON. In light of the different technologies brought to my 
attention by the Senators from Alaska, I will indeed be inclined to 
favor the House funding level in conference if that level will 
facilitate investigation of alternative technologies while ensuring 
that the current project moves forward.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will continue to monitor the existing project and 
thank the chairman and subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy regarding Oklahoma Indian funding with the distinguished 
chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Oklahoma 
is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand the bill before us contains 
several categories of Interior Department funding for Indians, one of 
which is the ``new tribes'' account. I also understand that the 
committee has included, as requested by the Administration, $160,000 
from this account for the Delaware Tribe of Indians, a tribe located in 
eastern Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Thank you, Mr. President.


                             Tribal Welfare

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I should like to engage in a discussion 
with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee 
about a provision in this bill that is very important to the Indian 
tribes in my State. The committee report directs the BIA to spend $5 
million from the Tribal Priority Allocation [TPA] to provide funds to 
Indian tribes that wish to run their own welfare programs in States 
where the tribal welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent of total caseload.
  I am very grateful to my colleagues for recognizing the unique 
situation that exists in my State. More than half of the welfare 
caseload in South Dakota is made up of native Americans. Poverty on 
South Dakota reservations is very high; in the last census poverty 
among the South Dakota tribes was greater than 50 percent. My State has 
the dubious distinction of having the poorest county in the country, 
and it is a reservation county. Unemployment is also very high. For the 
largest tribes, it was 44 percent in 1995. The number of native 
Americans in the potential labor force who are not working averages 68 
percent and, on some reservations, is as high as 95 percent.
  The native Americans in my State do not want to be dependent on 
welfare. Representatives for the tribes have talked extensively with me 
about how they want to build their economies and help their people find 
good jobs. They dream of the day when all native American people will 
have the opportunity to hold good jobs and have the satisfaction of 
contributing to the economic strength of their communities.
  For a number of complex reasons, this has been a difficult dream to 
accomplish. While they are working to improve their economies, they 
also want to assume the responsibility and use the option that is 
granted in the welfare bill to run their own welfare programs. They 
believe it is a matter of sovereignty, indeed even a treaty matter, 
that they enter into this new relationship with the Federal Government 
in a way that is parallel to how the States are treated. They do not 
want to be dependent upon the State. So they have asked for this 
funding to make it possible for them to take over their welfare 
programs and have a fair chance of succeeding in making their people's 
lives a little better.
  That is why I feel this provision is so important, and why I want to 
make sure it gives them the best chance at success. For this reason, I 
would like to ask my colleagues a few questions.
  As noted, the committee report indicates that $5 million would be 
provided under the Tribal Priorities Allocation to Indian tribes in 
States where the Indian welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent that wish 
to run their own welfare programs, and that the funds can be expended 
over a 2-year period. Is that also the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would tell my colleague that, yes, the 
TPA account is authorized to expend funds for 2 years.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I mentioned that the tribes in my State 
have indicated that they would like to run their own programs, but it 
is possible that some will decide it is not feasible for them to do so. 
The way this proposal is currently structured, if this happens, I would 
want to make sure that any unused funds revert to the TPA, and not the 
U.S. Treasury. Is it the committee's intent that, if all of the funds 
are not used 60 days prior to when they would otherwise lapse, they 
would then revert to the TPA fund to be allocated according to the 
program's formula?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, because these 
funds are expended as part of the TPA account, any unused funds would 
revert to the other uses of the TPA account. We would support allowing 
this to happen 60 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am in agreement with the subcommittee 
chairman. Such an arrangement would ensure that any funds not expended 
for this welfare initiative would be used for other TPA priorities.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to raise a technical detail 
that is not addressed in the report language. One of the tribes in 
South Dakota, the Standing Rock Tribe, also extends into North Dakota. 
It was my intention that, if that tribe chooses to submit a plan to run 
its own welfare program, the funds be available to run their program in 
both North and South Dakota, and that the match for the tribal members 
in North Dakota be proportionate to the match that Standing Rock would 
have received from their State. I should note that the amount of 
funding is sufficient to allow Standing Rock to serve both its North 
and South Dakota members. Would the chairman and ranking member agree 
that this would be possible under this provision?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that could be accommodated under 
the committee's language and would be happy to work with the Senator to 
make sure this is the case.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the chairman and ranking member would 
continue to indulge me, I would like to clarify one more technical 
point. The

[[Page S9611]]

report language says that the funds would be available to tribes whose 
caseloads exceed 50 percent of the total welfare caseload for the 
State. In point of fact, the tribes per se do not have caseloads, the 
States currently run the programs. My hope is that the chairman 
intended to indicate that funds would be provided in States where 
native Americans exceed 50 percent of a State's total caseload using 
data collected by the Administration for Children and Families at the 
Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal year 1995. Was that, 
in fact, the committee's intent?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yes, the intention was that the funds be 
provided to tribes in a State where the number of native Americans as a 
percent of total State caseload exceeded 50 percent in fiscal year 
1995.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have one last question. As the Senators 
on this committee are painfully aware, allocating discretionary 
spending in times of major budget cutting has resulted in many 
difficult decisions. But, I would point out that the TPA account, which 
is the one from which this funding would be taken, was cut fairly 
heavily earlier in the 1990's and is only now starting to regain some 
of its resources. At the same time, the need among many of the tribes 
has been growing steadily. Indeed, many parts of Indian Country have 
not always shared in the economic boom that the rest of the Nation 
currently enjoys. I would like to ask my colleagues whether they might 
be willing to find an alternative offset, one which does not take away 
resources from other tribes, in order to find this important provision. 
I am, of course, aware that the increase requested by the President for 
TPA included in this budget, as well as funding for this provision. 
Would my colleagues be willing to work with me during conference to try 
to find an alternative means of providing these funds?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Democratic leader clearly understands 
the difficult problems we face in allocating limited resources for the 
programs in our jurisdiction that are important for many of the Members 
of this body. However, we would certainly be willing to work with him 
during conference to see whether alternative funds might be available.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I express my sincere gratitude to the 
chairman and ranking member of the Interior subcommittee for their 
assistance in this matter. Last year's welfare reform bill provides an 
important opportunity for Indian tribes to run their own welfare 
programs. As I have said, I have met with representatives of all of the 
tribes in my State about this issue, and they care very deeply about 
it. I hope that, with these funds, they will be able to take on this 
important responsibility and help tribal members gain economic self-
sufficiency.


  CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER ON THE FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION OF 
                                 IDAHO

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Chairman yield for purposes of a 
colloquy?
  Mr. GORTON. I am happy to enter into a colloquy with the Senators 
from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not know if the Chairman is familiar with the problem 
faced by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe of Idaho regarding the 
contamination of the groundwater on the Fort Hall Reservation where the 
Tribe is located?
  Mr. Gorton. I am.
  Mr. CRAIG. Then the Chairman knows that since the 1970's a deadly 
poison named ethylene dibromide, or EDB, has been used as a pesticide 
on the reservation. Over time, EDB has leached into the groundwater at 
unsafe levels. Currently, approximately 1,500 people, both on and off 
the Fort Hall Reservation, are at risk. Most of those living on the 
reservation are served by one of two existing drinking water systems--
one operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the other by Indian 
Health Service.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Nothing is more important than ensuring all of our 
citizens have safe and affordable supply of drinking water. Over the 
last 6 years, both agencies have been very helpful. The Indian Health 
Service has provided technical assistance and funding to characterize 
the groundwater contamination and to investigate alternatives. Its 
efforts have included the drilling and testing of wells, conducting 
Tribal meetings, providing educational material, and assisting in 
Federal coordination. In addition, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, 
and others have devoted an enormous effort over several years to assess 
the situation and develop alternative solutions.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would also like to bring to the Chairman's attention 
that the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a needs assessment on the 
EDB problem. This assessment concluded that the preferred alternative 
is the incorporation of the existing Indian Health Service water supply 
system into a new, larger drinking water system. Such a project would 
involve the drilling of new public wells outside the contaminated area 
and piping the water to the residents whose wells are unsafe.
  Mr. GORTON. It would appear that such a recommendation would be a 
reasonable approach to provide for the delivery of safe drinking water 
to the 1,500 people currently at risk.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree with the Chairman. The recommendation 
outlined by the Bureau of Reclamation is the most logical and cost-
effective alternative.
  Mr. CRAIG. Of course such a project would be expensive. However, this 
burden would be spread out over the several agencies from all levels of 
Government which would share responsibility for its completion. The 
Indian Health Service already has identified and suggested several 
areas where it might be of assistance during the education, public 
involvement, and coordination phase. These include providing further 
educational assistance and public information materials, the 
investigation of alternative water sources, assistance in the selection 
and implementation of appropriate treatment technologies, the design of 
ground water monitoring plans and schedules, and the coordination and 
sharing of data and analysis.
  Mr. GORTON. Along with the other Federal agencies involved in the 
actual construction of the drinking water system, I would agree that 
the Indian Health Service clearly has a role in the education and 
advisement of the affected community, so long as the Service meets its 
priorities and other obligations.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree with the Chairman. Of course, we understand 
that funding for this project cannot be guaranteed, given the many 
competing priorities faced by the Indian Health Service.
  Mr. GORTON. Given the threat to the health of those exposed to the 
contaminated drinking water, I would support whatever assistance the 
Service could provide.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chairman and am pleased to hear of his 
strong support of this project.
  Mr. CRAIG. I too would like to thank the Chairman. Seeing this 
project started as quickly as possible has become a high priority for 
myself and my fellow Idahoans. We are committed to getting this project 
completed and will be working over the coming months and years to see 
that all necessary funds are appropriated for the project's 
construction. Beginning the education phase now, through the Indian 
Health Service, will save valuable time and help relieve the threat of 
continued harm.


          fossil energy r&d account: Coal mine methane program

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller and I would like to 
engage the manager of the Interior Appropriations bill in a brief 
colloquy.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to respond to my friend who is the 
ranking member on the subcommittee and to his colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller.
  Mr. BYRD. The committee's recommendation does not fund the 
administration's $963,000 request for the Coal Mine Methane Program 
under the Fossil Energy account. I believe that the House also declined 
to fund this program based on the belief that it was a ``new start.''
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the fiscal constraints facing this bill and 
the difficult task that our chairman has accomplished in a fair and 
bipartisan manner. However, I would hope that we could take a second 
look at this methane recovery program.

[[Page S9612]]

  Mr. President, this program is not a new start as the House committee 
report suggests. Congress appropriated money specifically for the Coal 
Mine Methane Program in fiscal year 1995. Some of the funds for this 
initiative were obligated prior to the rescission bill enacted in 1995. 
While the Department may have gotten off to a slow start with this 
program, for the past 18 months it has had five teams under contract to 
prepare phase II detailed project designs. The original appropriation 
to initiate these projects has been exhausted, and the funds requested 
for fiscal year 1988 are necessary to complete the ongoing project 
designs. I am told that the five teams have provided costsharing in 
excess of thirty percent.
  The Department of Energy has indicated that the Coal Mine Methane 
Program can make a significant contribution to the effort to curtail 
greenhouse gases and estimates that within five years coal mine methane 
collection and utilization systems could reduce emissions by an amount 
equivalent to 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide [CO2] each 
year. The Department's research is expected to demonstrate that the 
private sector can, remarkably, generate profit by utilizing and 
destroying these waste gases. Given the large, cost-effective and near-
term potential of this research, the Department has proposed the Coal 
Mine Methane program as one of its global climate change research 
initiatives.
  As the sponsor of Senate Resolution 98, I am clearly on the record in 
opposition to any binding international greenhouse gas emissions 
agreement that would injure the American economy or put us at a 
competitive disadvantage with any other countries. At the same time, I 
strongly believe that we in Congress should promote the development and 
use of technologies that can become economically competitive energy 
sources and which, at the same time, reduce potential greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  The Coal Mine Methane program clearly meets these standards. Turning 
pollution into useful energy at a competitive price, with no subsidies 
and no new regulation, can be good for electric consumers, good for the 
environment and good for America, in general.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I completely agree with the comments 
of my senior Senator. I would note that three of the five teams under 
contracts to the Department of Energy are working on projects in our 
State of West Virginia. I understand that the other two are located in 
Alabama and Ohio.
  These five projects offer great promise compared to conventional 
greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. A single, small coal mine methane 
project designed to produce 10 megawatts of electricity is expected to 
operate at a profit. That same project would unequivocally produce 
collateral greenhouse gas mitigation benefits equal to the carbon 
sequestered by approximately 14 million trees. In sharp contrast to the 
profit generated by the coal mine methane project, tree planting would 
come at a cost conservatively estimated at $18 million. So, DOE's 
methane capture program makes dollars and sense.
  This program is relatively small in terms of Federal cost but can 
leverage significant private sector investment and may generate 
considerable economic and environmental benefits for Americans living 
in the Appalachian coal regions. I hope that we may reconsider the 
recommendation on this particular program.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senators make a compelling case.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. In that light, 
I inquire whether he would have any objection if the Department were to 
shift up to $500,000 to continue the Coal Mine Methane Program.
  Mr. GORTON. As the Senator may know, the reprogramming threshold 
established by the committee's guidelines is $500,000. I do appreciate 
the clarification that this effort would not be a new start. Should the 
Department be able to identify funds for a reprogramming, it should 
consider the needs associated with completing the ongoing project 
designs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for 
his consideration and support of this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I offer my appreciation as well. As always, 
the Senator from Washington has been most fair in this deliberation.


    engineering related services utilized by department of interior 
                                agencies

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue with the 
Chairman as we conclude the debate on the Interior Appropriations bill. 
I had intended offered an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators 
Thomas and Murkowski to instruct the various agencies of the Department 
of the Interior to prepare a report to the committee regarding the 
instances in which they have entered into InterAgency Service 
Agreements with other Federal agencies or into agreements with State 
and local governments on foreign entities. Unfortunately, we have been 
unable to reach agreement among members of the committee on the 
feasibility and scope of this amendment. I am disappointed with this 
development and I will not offer this amendment this evening.
  As the Chairman well knows, there are a number of architectural, 
engineering, geological mapping and even aircraft services that are 
contracted out by the various agencies within the Department of the 
Interior. I simply would like to get a sense of the impact on private 
engineering and consulting firms when agencies enter into agreements or 
contract for services within. I believe the information would have been 
valuable to the committee. It would help the committee recognize 
opportunities to save money by using the private sector more often and 
it will help redirect agencies toward their core governmental missions. 
While I will not offer this amendment, I intend to continue to pursue 
this information. I ask the Chairman if he would be also be interested 
in exploring this issue further?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Utah raises a good point. But given our 
very short timeframe, I appreciate the Senator's decision to withhold. 
The information to be gathered by any such inquiry would be very costly 
and time-consuming to develop, so I would hope that a more focused 
effort could be considered. The Senator is correct that cost-saving 
measures are important during tight budget times, and I appreciate his 
interest in this matter.


                  needed repairs to twin reservoir dam

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a 
colloquy to bring to his attention the need for repairs to the Twin 
Reservoir Dam located near Polson, MT.
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The dam is in need of $50,000 in repairs, and I would 
like to know if the Chairman would support the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
if the BIA could allocate funds within existing resources to make these 
much-needed repairs.
  Mr. GORTON. I would support whatever assistance the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs could devote to repairs of the Twin Reservoir Dam, so long as 
the expenditure of any funds is consistent with the Bureau's 
priorities.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman.


                        electrochromic research

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we would like to engage our dear friend, 
Senator Gorton, in a colloquy. He has once again drafted a difficult 
bill this year and has balanced difficult priorities. Within the energy 
conservation section of the bill, the committee has provided $500,000 
more than in fiscal year 1997 for electrochromic research within the 
building equipment and materials section. We would hope that it is the 
expectation of the chairman that this $500,000 increase will be used to 
further the development of Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition 
[PECVD] techniques for electrochromic technology.
  Mr. MACK. Understand that this technology provides a flexible means 
to control the amount of light and heat that passes through a glass 
surface. This is a superb energy savings opportunity important to the 
Nation.
  In recognition of the importance of this technology, Florida has 
provided $1.2 million in State funds to develop this technology in 
cooperation with the University of South Florida and a licensee of a 
technology developed by the National Renewable Laboratory in Colorado.
  Is it the Chairman's understanding that the Committee intends that 
this project be a priority for the use of this $500,000 addition?
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate my colleagues bringing this technology to my

[[Page S9613]]

attention. It is indeed a promising technology that could produce 
substantial energy savings. Within the increase provided for 
electrochromic research, I hope the Department will consider supporting 
the PECVD project, provided this can be accomplished without a 
substantially adverse impact on ongoing projects in the electrochromic 
program. I further hope the Department will consider PECVD in 
formulating its FY 1999 budget request.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I concur with the subcommittee chairman's 
assessment. DOE should evaluate the potential benefits of this 
technology when considering its allocation of fiscal year 1998 funds.


                              ihs funding

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wish to inquire of my colleague from 
Washington State, Senator Gorton, chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, on the funding status of health facility 
construction projects within the Indian Health Service that are in the 
design and engineering phase. Prior to the 1998 appropriations process, 
the Congress had funded about two-thirds of the design and engineering 
work that is necessary prior to begin construction of the new Winnebago 
Hospital. This hospital, now over 70 years old, serves the Indian 
people in northeast Nebraska and northwest Iowa. The Indian Health 
Service has indicated that another $650,000 will be needed to complete 
the design phase. Does Senator Gorton share my understanding of this 
situation?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator from Nebraska is correct as to this 
funding shortfall. In addition, there are two other nonhospital 
facilities in Arizona for which appropriated design funds have not been 
sufficient. The administration's fiscal year 1998 budget did not 
request design funds for these facilities either. This lack of a 
funding request has meant that neither the House nor the Senate has 
included funds necessary to complete the design phase for the Winnebago 
Hospital.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank Senator Gorton for bringing this matter to the 
attention of the Senate. It is an incredible slip on the part of the 
IHS to have neglected to request these needed funds. It appears that in 
previous years the IHS seriously underestimated the amount of funding 
that would be required to complete the design phase of this facility. 
This is why it is so puzzling that there was no request for additional 
funding in this budget year. Every delay in funding means increased 
project costs. My question to Senator Gorton and to Ranking Member Byrd 
is whether it is still possible for the Congress to find some funds in 
this appropriations measure to be sure these projects stay on track?
  Mr. GORTON. It is my understanding that a total of $2.1 million would 
be needed to complete the design phase for the three projects. There 
simply is not that leeway in the measure we are considering today. 
However, should funds become available as a result of conference 
agreements with the House, I will try to see that they are made 
available for completion of the design phase of the three projects if 
that is agreeable to my colleague, Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President, at this point I think that this is the 
best commitment that we can make to our colleagues from Nebraska and 
Arizona. If we are not able to accomplish this, however, we can 
consider including conference report language directing the IHS to 
include funding requests in the fiscal year 1999 budget to complete the 
design phase for these facilities; funding requests to begin first 
phase construction of these facilities might also be appropriate.
  Mr. KERREY. I am very pleased that my colleagues are as concerned as 
I am about meeting the health needs of our native American people. As I 
mentioned earlier, the existing IHS facility at Winnebago is over 70 
years old and I would venture to comment that there are probably not 
very many full-service hospitals in this country serving non-Indians 
that have reached that not-so-venerable age. It is a shame and the 
shame rests mostly with the failure of the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to this country's first Americans.


                  the land and water conservation fund

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to clarify with the 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member the process, as described 
on page 116 in the Senate Committee Report on the Interior 
Appropriations bill (S. Report 105-56), for the expenditure of land and 
water conservation fund dollars provided in this legislation. Is this 
Senator correct in his understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee 
intends to work with the Appropriations Committee in the other body and 
the administration to develop a list of projects to be funded with the 
remainder of $700 million in land and water conservation fund moneys 
that are not allocated in this legislation for either specific Federal 
projects or for the States?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Is it the case that the administration will begin 
developing this list as soon as possible?
  Mr. GORTON. Again, the Senator is correct. After the list is 
developed it will be provided to the Senate Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee and the relevant subcommittee in the other body for their 
review and approval.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the Senator feel that it would be appropriate for 
Senators to contact Interior line agencies if they are aware of 
projects they believe are meritorious, such as the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's proposed Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge in my home 
State of Wisconsin?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct, and indeed, 
Senators are contacting appropriate Interior line agencies to make them 
aware of projects as well as officials within the administration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the senior Senator from West Virginia concur with 
the Senator from Washington and myself?
  Mr. BYRD. I do, and I thank the Senator for seeking additional 
clarification. It is common practice for Senators to assist Interior 
agencies by bringing particular projects to their attention so that the 
agencies may have the benefit of evaluating these projects for 
potential inclusion on the list.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the managers 
of the bill for their hard work in putting forth legislation which 
provides necessary funding for many things from National Parks to the 
Bureau of Mines. The Interior Appropriations bill is the 12th of the 13 
appropriations bills to come before the Senate this year.
  Unfortunately, once again, this bill and the report language 
accompanying it contain numerous earmarks and pork barrel spending 
projects. I ask unanimous consent that a list of eight pages of 
objectionable provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Objectionable Provisions in The Fiscal Year 1998 Interior 
                          Appropriations Bill


                             Bill Language

       $2,043,000 for the assessment of the mineral potential of 
     public lands in Alaska.
       Unspecified amount for the maintenance of a long-horned 
     cattle herd on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.
       $11,612,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to construct 
     fishery mitigation facilities on the Lower Snake River.
       $2 million for local governments in Southern California for 
     Natural Communities Conservation Planning.
       $500,000 for the Darwin Mountain House in Buffalo, NY, and 
     $500,000 for the Penn Center in South Carolina.
       $3 million for the Hispanic Cultural Center in New Mexico 
     and $1 million for the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, both 
     subject to authorization.
       Language prohibiting the relocation of the Brooks River 
     Lodge in the Katmai National Park and Preserve located in 
     Alaska.
       Directed transfer of the Bowden National Fish Hatchery from 
     the United States to the State of West Virginia (without 
     payment by the state) to be used by the West Virginia 
     Division of Natural Resources.
       Language establishing a commission to assist the city of 
     Berlin, NH in identifying and studying the Androscoggin River 
     Valley's ``historical and cultural assets'', accompanied by 
     an authorization of $50,000 for operating expenses of the 
     commission.
       $800,000 for the World Forestry Center to continue research 
     into land exchanges in the Umpqua River Basin region in 
     Oregon.
       Language specifying the relocation of Region 10 of the 
     Forest Service to Ketchikan, AK, and reference to transfers 
     and closures of other offices in Alaska directed in the 
     report language.
       Language dictating that not more than one quarter of the 
     amount of hardwood harvested in 1989 may be cut from the 
     Wayne National Forest in Ohio in 1998, and requiring that 
     landscape architects must be used to ``maintain a visually 
     pleasing forest''.

[[Page S9614]]

       Language stating that Forest Service funds shall be 
     available to counties within the Columbia Gorge National 
     Scenic Area in Washington state.
       Language stating that Forest Service funds shall be 
     available for payments to Del Norte County, CA.
       Earmark of unspecified funds for research on extraction, 
     processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without 
     objectionable social and environmental costs, performed by 
     the Albany Research Center in Oregon.
       Language requiring compliance with all ``Buy America'' 
     provisions.
       Language prohibiting the use of any funds to demolish the 
     bridge between Jersey City, NJ and Ellis Island.
       Language authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     Interior to limit competition for watershed restoration 
     projects in Washington, Oregon, and northern California to 
     individuals and entities in historically timber dependent 
     areas in those states that have been affected by reduced 
     timber harvesting on federal lands.
       Language mandating the transfer of the Wind River Nursery 
     in Gifford Pinchot National Forest, WA to Skamania County, 
     WA, in exchange for 120 acres of the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area.
       Language exempting certain residents in specified areas 
     from having to pay user fees for access to the White Mountain 
     National Forest in New Hampshire.
       Earmarks of Land and Water Conservation Funds for the New 
     World Mines project ($65 million), the Headwaters Forest 
     agreement ($100 million), acquisition of the Elwha and Glines 
     dams in Washington, and acquisition of the Sterling Forest in 
     New York ($8.5 million).


                            report language

       Earmarks totaling $6.4 million for the Grand Staircase-
     Escalante National Monument, UT as follows:
       $1,330,000 increase under land resources.
       $300,000 increase under wildlife and fisheries.
       $270,000 increase under threatened and endangered species.
       $1,150,000 increase under recreation management.
       $150,000 increase under energy and minerals.
       $300,000 increase under realty and ownership management.
       $1,050,000 increase under resource protection and 
     maintenance.
       BLM is to allocate all recommended funds to the Utah State 
     office and the project office assigned responsibility for the 
     monument. Report language prohibits reprogramming of funds 
     from these lines.
       $100,000 for Alaska Gold Rush Centennial Task Force.
       $500,000 for Department of Defense to develop habitat 
     mitigation plans in Alaska.
       $350,000 for the Virgin River Basin, UT.
       $400,000 for Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and 
     related projects.
       $500,000 add-on to allow BLM to process oil and gas lease 
     applications in Alaska, Arizona and Idaho.
       $700,000 for additional library support to Alaska Resources 
     Library and Information Services Consortium to develop 
     digital online library resources and data bases in Alaska, 
     development and implement a plan to protect records at the 
     Geologic Material Center in Eagle River, and develop a data 
     base for mining claims.
       Language earmaring funding at FY 97 levels (plus fixed 
     costs and requiring FY 97 levels of employees to continue 
     Alaska cadastral surveys and complete the transfer of 155 
     million acres of federal land in Alaska to state, Native 
     villages, and individuals.
       $700,000 to fund a type I hotshot crew for wildland fire 
     management in Alaska.
       $1,925,000 for redevelopment of Interior interagency fire 
     operations center in Billings, MT.
       Earmark for land acquisitions as follows:
       $900,000 for Lake Fork of the Gunnison, CO.
       $1,100,000 for Otay Mountains/Kuchamaa, CA.
       $1,000,000 for Santa Rosa Mountains, CA.
       $2,000,000 for Washington Cunty desert tortise, UT.
       $1,000,000 for Western Riverside County, CA.
       $400,000 for Alabama sturgeon conservation efforts, and 
     $560,000 for Iron County habitat conservation plan, WI.
       Earmark for habitat conservations as follows:
       $600,000 for Middle Rio Grande (Bosque) Program.
       $200,000 for Platte River studies, CO.
       $1,131,000 for Chicago Wetlands Office.
       $200,000 increase for Yukon River escapement monitoring and 
     research, AK, and $400,000 for Alaska salmon conservation.
       $578,000 for the Great Lakes initiative related to 
     fisheries.
       $1,000,000 for The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 
     and
       $200,000 for the Caddo Lake Institute, TX.
       Add-ons for construction projects as follows:
       $600,000 for dike repair of Bear River National Wildlife 
     Refuge, UT.
       $335,000 for an Administrative building at Blackwater 
     National Wildlife Refuge, MD.
       $425,000 to replace the boardwalk at Horicon National 
     Wildlife Refuge, WI.
       $1,000,000 for rehabilitation at John Hay Estate, NH.
       $1,000,000 for complete construction of Keauhou Bird 
     Conservation Center, HI.
       $480,000 for access trail and public use facility 
     rehabilitation for Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, AK.
       $702,000 to replace bridges at Mingo National Wildlife 
     Refuge, MO.
       $400,000 to replace irrigation system at National Elk 
     Refuge, WY.
       $2,000,000 for Mora hatchery at Southwest Fisheries 
     Technology Center, NM.
       $840,000 for trail construction and access at Steigerwald 
     National Wildlife Refuge, WA.
       $12,732,000 add-on in land acquisition, for a total of 
     $57,292,000, which is all earmarked for specific projects 
     [see page 27 of report].
       $100,000 for Park Service trails office in support of Lewis 
     and Clark National Historic Trail activities, and $400,000 
     for technical assistance along the Lewis and Clark National 
     Historic Trial.
       $200,000 for support of the Selma to Montgomery National 
     Historic Trail and the California and Pony Express National 
     Historic Trails.
       $100,000 earmarks for the Park Service to establish a 
     Katmai National Park and Preserve satellite office on Kodiak 
     Island, AK.
       Earmarks of recreation and preservation funds for:
       $100,000 add-on for Aleutian World War II National Historic 
     Area.
       $324,000 extra for Blackstone River Corridor Heritage 
     Commission.
       $829,000 extra for Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal.
       $238,000 extra for Illinois and Michigan Canal National 
     Heritage Corridor Commission.
       $65,000 extra for lower Mississippi Delta.
       $200,000 extra for Quinebaug-Shetucket National Heritage 
     Corridor Commission.
       $758,000 extra for Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage 
     Preservation Commission.
       $285,000 extra for Vancouver National Historic Reserve.
       $480,000 extra for Wheeling National Heritage Area.
       Earmarks of National Park Service construction funds for 
     unrequested projects, as follows:
       $2,200,000 to construct the Alaska Native Heritage Center, 
     AK.
       $500,000 for directional signs, et cetera at Blackstone 
     River Valley national Historic Commission, MA/RI.
       $2,000,000 to move the lighthouse at Cape Hatteras National 
     Seashore, NC.
       $500,000 to construct a storage facility at the Center for 
     Archeological Studies, AL.
       $500,000 to design and engineer the C&O Canal National 
     Historical Park, MD.
       $500,000 for restoration of the Darwin Martin House, NY.
       $250,000 for Fort Jefferson rehabilitation at Dry Tortugas 
     National Park, FL.
       $3,000,000 for a multiagency center with BLM at El Malpais 
     National Monument, NM.
       $3,400,000 for rehabilitation of Fort Smith National 
     Historic Site, AR.
       $2,860,000 for site development at Fort Sumter National 
     Monument, SC.
       $750,000 for facilities planning at Gauley National 
     Recreation Area, WV.
       $700,000 to rehabilitate facilities and monuments at 
     Gettysburg National Military Park, PA.
       $1,731,000 for wastewater treatment at Glacier Bay National 
     Park and Preserve, AK.
       $3,000,000 for an arts center at the Hispanic Cultural 
     Center, NM.
       $500,000 for the stabilization and lead paint for Hot 
     Springs National Park, AR.
       $200,000 for the rehabilitation of Katmai National Park and 
     Preserve, AK.
       $300,000 for an interagency facility at Kenai Fjords 
     National Park, AK.
       $310,000 for the repair of fences at Manzanar National 
     Historic Site, CA.
       $8,000,000 for road construction at Natchez Trace Parkway, 
     MS.
       $153,000 for roof repair and access at New Bedford Whaling 
     National Historical Park MA.
       $2,525,000 for access and trails stabilization at New River 
     Gorge National River, WV.
       $1,000,000 for construction of Oklahoma City Memorial, OK.
       $500,000 for the rehabilitation of Penn Center, SC.
       $1,000,000 for Corinth Battlefield interpretive center at 
     Shiloh National Military Park, MS.
       $510,000 for the joint administrative facility with Forest 
     Service at Timpanogos Cave National Monument, UT.
       $2,223,000 for the planning, compliance, and restoration of 
     Vancouver National Historical Reserve, WA.
       $2,595,000 for the rehabilitation of Vicksburg National 
     Military Park, MS.
       $400,000 for the design interpretive center at Wrangell- 
     St. Elias National Park and Preserve, AK.
       $54,790,000 add-on for land acquisition, for a total of 
     $125,690,000, almost all of which is earmarked [see page 39 
     of report].
       $900,000 for the Great Salt Lake basins study unit of the 
     NAWQA, including a plan for the collection of water quality 
     data.
       $1,000,000 for restoration of the Great Lake fisheries and 
     habitats, $500,000 for Pacific salmon studies, and $1,000,000 
     for endocrine disruption research.
       $500,000 for the establishment of a fine hardwoods tree 
     improvement and regeneration center at Purdue University.
       Language directs the Forest Service to initiate a study 
     regarding the establishment of a harvesting and wood 
     utilization laboratory in Sitka, AK.
       $500,000 for a multiparty task force to create an action 
     plan to manage spruce bark beetle infestations and 
     rehabilitate infested areas in Alaska.
       $200,000 to strengthen the role of the Forest Service in 
     assisting the Hardwoods Training

[[Page S9615]]

     Center in Princeton in becoming economically self-sustaining.
       $800,000 add-on for land exchanges between willing public 
     and private owners in the Umpqua River basin, OR.
       $68,400 add-on for creating and maintaining scenic vistas 
     along the Talimena Scenic Byway.
       $360,000 for planning an office and laboratory facility to 
     house the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry research and 
     public outreach program.
       $4,000,000 for reconstruction of the Oakridge ranger 
     station on the Willamette National Forest, OR.
       $1,200,000 for the Federal share of construction of the 
     Pikes Peak Summit House, CO.
       $427,000 for construction of restroom facilities at Lee 
     Canyon and Tahoe Meadows.
       $445,000 for construction of a visitor contact station and 
     administrative site on Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma.
       $725,000 for reconstruction of infrastructure facilities at 
     Waldo Lake on the Willamette National Forest, OR.
       $1,214,000 for construction of new facilities and the 
     rehabilitation of existing facilities in the venues of the 
     2002 Winter Olympic games.
       Language used to direct Forest Service to prepare a report 
     which allows for providing road access from Wrangell to 
     Canada and to Ketchikan.
       $1,300,000 for construction of portions of the Continental 
     Divide National Scenic Trail in Colorado.
       Increase of $8,119,000 for land acquisition, for a total of 
     $49,176,000, most of which is earmarked [see report p. 80].
       $625,000 for acquisition of the Cannard tract at the 
     Columbia River Gorge.
       $2,000,000 increase over the budget request for mining 
     programs, earmarked for the Intermountain Center for Mining 
     Research and Development.

  Mr. McCAIN. Some of the earmarked projects funded in this bill have 
merit--I do not dispute that. What I do object to is the process by 
which these funds are appropriated. Earmarking Federal tax dollars is a 
process which can no longer be tolerated in these times of fiscal 
restraint.
  It is unfair to the American taxpayer that we allow this to continue. 
It is not right that we require the American taxpayer to foot the bill 
for landscape architects to ``maintain a visually pleasing forest'' in 
the Wayne National Forest in Ohio as this bill dictates. Why is it 
necessary to have hard working Americans pay nearly $2 million for the 
redevelopment of a fire operations center in Billings, MT?
  As I stated previously, Mr. President, these projects may have merit 
and may be very important--but how do we know that? Have they ever had 
a hearing? Have these projects ever been competitively bid? The answer, 
sadly, is no.
  Mr. President, I will not take any more of the Senate's time voicing 
my objections. I will close by saying that I truly hope we can bring an 
end to the practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations process. 
The American taxpayer deserves better than the wasteful spending that 
we have seen in these twelve appropriations bills.


                    u.s. mand and biosphere program

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to 
engage Senator Gorton in a discussion of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere 
Program. As the Senator is aware, the House of Representatives, by a 
vote of 222 to 203, on July 15, 1997 passed the appropriations bill for 
the Department of the Interior. Included as part of that legislation 
was an amendment which prohibits funding for the U.S. Man and Biosphere 
Program. Although a similar provision has not been included as part of 
the Senate deliberations on this appropriation, I offer the following 
argument for its inclusion in the upcoming conference between the House 
and Senate.
  Many of my colleagues may question exactly what the U.S. Man and the 
Biosphere Program is. After all you will not find it mentioned in any 
line item within this bill, nor will you find it housed in any of the 
agencies which receive appropriations under this bill. The U.S. Man and 
the Biosphere Program or USMAB operates through the State Department 
and under the guidance of the United Nations Educational and Scientific 
Organization [UNESCO] to designate tracts of American land as biosphere 
reserves. These areas are ``voluntarily'' subject to land management 
requirements designated to facilitate ecological research and 
preservation. Currently, there are 47 biospheres in the United States 
covering a land area approximately the size of Colorado, our eighth 
largest state. Some biospheres, such as the Land Between the Lakes 
Biosphere in Kentucky, include populated areas with over 484,000 
residents.
  Despite the size and breadth of this program it has never been 
authorized by Congress, yet it is still 100% taxpayer funded. It is 
supported through interagency transfers from a total of thirteen 
different agencies. Collectively, these agencies contributed $210,000 
to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program in Fiscal Year 1997.
  While the total value associated with this program may fly well below 
many of our radar screens, the question and problems associated with 
the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program are very real and very much in 
the minds of our constituents.
  While I was serving in the House, some of my constituents brought to 
my attention a proposal by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program to 
create the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative, which would have 
encompassed part of my home state of Arkansas as well as part of the 
states of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. As I began to investigate 
this proposal some of the very worst fears of my constituents were 
confirmed. The ``voluntary, honorary'' land designation represented a 
potential threat to the private property rights of my constituents. For 
example, on page 120 of the Feasibility Study for the Ozark Man and the 
Biosphere appeared the following statement, ``Normally, there is no 
need for change in land-holding or regulation following the designation 
of a biosphere reserve except where changes are required to ensure the 
strict protection of the core area or specific research sites.''
  Perhaps what was even more frightening was this biosphere was being 
created in secret. The steering committee responsible for attempting to 
create the Ozark biosphere admitted in their feasibility study that 
they ``decided that public meetings would not be part of the interview 
process because such meetings tend to polarize views of the public and 
may capture negative attention from the press.'' (Page 43 of the 
Feasibility study)

  Many individuals will undoubtedly wonder how this was possible. Under 
what legislative authority did the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program 
undertake these initiatives? The answer is that there is no legislative 
authority. Congress has never passed any law creating the U.S. Man and 
the Biosphere Program authorizing them to engage in their activities. 
Even the web page for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program admits 
that ``No specific law exists for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere 
Program.''
  Proponents of this program will undoubtedly assert that my experience 
was an isolated incident, and it was for the very reasons I cited that 
the area around the Ozarks was never finally designated a Biosphere 
Reserve. However, I would urge these individuals to look at the 
testimony presented before the House Resources Committee this year, 
where local officials repeatedly testified that they were never 
consulted about proposals to create biosphere reserves in their areas. 
I would encourage the proponents of this program to look to the Alaska 
and Colorado State Legislatures and the Kentucky State Senate, all of 
which passed resolutions opposing the U.S. Man and the Biosphere 
Program, despite the fact that there are currently three biospheres in 
Alaska, four in Colorado, and two in Kentucky. To date, the U.S. Man 
and the Biosphere Program has taken no action to address the concerns 
of these State and local officials.
  This is not to say that the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has 
not produced some positive contributions to our understanding of the 
environment and mans relationship to it. However, until my questions, 
the questions, of my constituents, the questions of the State 
Legislatures, and the questions of many of our colleagues are answered, 
I in good conscience cannot support using one more tax dollar in 
support of this program.
  It is for these above stated reasons that I ask that the House 
adopted language be included in the Conference report.
  I thank Senator Gorton, for the opportunity to present this very 
important issue for Conference consideration.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator from Arkansas bringing his 
concerns to my attention, and they will

[[Page S9616]]

have considerable weight with me when the House presents its position 
in Conference.


                Use of BIA Funds for Marty Indian School

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished 
ranking Democrat, Senator Byrd, for their leadership and hard work on 
this legislation. I appreciate their willingness to work with me and 
Senator Johnson to provide greatly needed assistance to the Marty 
Indian School in our state.
  In the past, the Marty School has received funds sufficient to 
replace its decaying high school facility. However, the elementary 
school is 70 years old and is in serious need of immediate repairs. The 
facility is not suitable to serve the educational needs of its students 
safely. Recently, a piece of the ceiling in one of the elementary 
school's buildings crashed onto the desk of a young student. 
Fortunately, there were no injuries. However, the serious physical 
problems at the school continue to pose a significant threat to its 
students. It is clear that eventually the entire elementary school will 
need to be replaced.
  Senator Johnson and I would like to ask if it is the intent of the 
committee that the report language that refers to the Marty Indian 
School, found on page 55 of the Committee Report, gives direction to 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assess the serious structural 
deficiencies, particularly those that could compromise the health and 
safety of the elementary school students, and to endeavor to provide 
funds from the emergency or minor repair programs of the Facility 
Improvement and Repair program to correct these problems at the 
earliest possible date?
  Mr. GORTON. That is the committee's intention to the extent high 
priority requirements are identified and prioritized.
  Mr. BYRD. That is my understanding.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for adding that language to the report. 
While we are delighted that these emergency repairs will be made if 
identified as a priority, we wish to note that the BIA has determined 
that the entire Marty facility needs to be replaced because it is no 
longer economically feasible merely to shore up these very old 
structures. Senator Daschle and I are delighted that the replacement 
high school is now being constructed. However, before long the 
elementary school facilities must also be replaced. I recognize the 
shortage of Facilities Improvement and Repair funds. Senator Daschle 
and I would like to work with the committee and the BIA to place the 
Marty Indian School elementary school on the priority list for future 
replacement funds when that list is opened up.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and look 
forward to working with you on this issue. I am proud of the Marty 
Indian School. Under the leadership of School Board President, Mike 
Redlightning, and past President Robert Cournoyer and the other Board 
Members, the school has a wonderful working relationship with the 
Yankton Sioux Tribal Council. Support for the Marty Indian School 
indeed is strong among the Yankton Sioux people.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a brief history 
of the Marty Indian School that has served the Yankton Sioux people of 
the Marty area so well for so long.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        The Marty Indian School


                     school background and history

       Marty Indian School is owned and operated by the Yankton 
     Sioux Tribe. The Marty Indian School is a legal entity of the 
     Yankton Sioux Tribal Business and Claims Committee and is 
     authorized to operate, maintain and administer Marty's 
     educational programs on behalf of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. 
     The school is located on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in 
     southeast South Dakota near the South Dakota/Nebraska border 
     four miles east of the Missouri River and 13 miles southwest 
     of Wagner, South Dakota. The original Yankton Sioux Nation 
     consisted of about two thirds of the portion of South Dakota 
     lying east of the Missouri River. The original reservation 
     consisted of 400,000 acres established by the treaty of 1858. 
     Tribal enrollment for both on and off reservation Yanktons is 
     over 7,000. Marty Indian School serves Students in grades K-
     12 in their Instructional programs. The school also operates 
     a dormitory program for students in grades 6-12. Of the 796 
     school age children living on the reservation in 1994-1995, 
     290 or 38.94% of those children attended Marty Indian School. 
     The remaining students attending The Wagner and Lake Andes 
     public schools.
       Marty Indian School, formerly known as St. Paul's Indian 
     Mission, began in 1926 by a missionary priest from Indiana, 
     Father Sylvester Eisenmann, O.S.B. The leaders of the Yankton 
     Dakota people wanted formal education for their children 
     because they realized that change was coming for the Yankton 
     Tribe. In April, 1921, three of these leaders, Thunder Horse, 
     Edward Yellow Bird, and David Zephier made their trek to St. 
     Meinrad Abby in southern Indiana to request that Father 
     Sylvester be assigned as the permanent missionary on their 
     reservation. They camped on the lawn of the Abby until the 
     abbot agreed to their plea.
       When Father Sylvester first came to the present site of 
     Marty Indian School, he built a two story school building and 
     a chapel. He named the mission after Martin Marty, the first 
     South Dakota Roman Catholic Bishop. Osotewin--Smoke Woman--
     (to become know as Grandma White Tallow) donated the land for 
     the new school and the farms needed to support it. The school 
     was built building after building as the demand for space 
     grew and funds were collected. Since its inception, through 
     the labor of many devoted workers, Marty Indian School's 
     campus has grown to include twenty-seven buildings on thirty 
     beautifully landscaped acres.
       In its early days, the students learned a great deal from 
     doing. During various construction phases, the students 
     worked on the building projects for half of the day, and went 
     to school the other half. There was a shoe shop on the 
     campus, a printing shop where the bilingual newspaper was 
     published, and the school ran a farming operation.
       In March 1975, the ownership of Marty Indian School was 
     transferred to the Yankton Sioux Tribe from the Benedictine 
     Fathers of Blue Cloud Abby. Since that time, the school has 
     been operated by the Marty Indian School Board of Education. 
     Marty has continuously maintained full academic accreditation 
     with exemplary ratings from the State of South Dakota 
     Department of Education.
       In the fall of 1994, Marty entered the Effective Schools 
     Program. Since that time a new mission statement has been 
     adopted which involves parents and staff. A comprehensive 
     survey was completed. In-service training has been held on 
     learning styles and teaching strategies. An in-service 
     concerning centering on the issue of restructuring the school 
     was held for all teaching and dorm staff in August of 
     1995. A curriculum committee consisting of representatives 
     from the community, tribal education office, 
     administration and teaching staff has been meeting for two 
     years to make curriculum more relevant to students and 
     increase student learning. This last year a Tribal 
     Education Code was adopted by the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
       In 1995, the Tribe was presented with the Lyle Richards 
     Memorial Award for exemplary service to Indian children by 
     the South Dakota Indian Education Association. Two middle 
     teacher, Carrie Ackerman-Rice and Cynthia Goter, were named 
     Middle school teachers of the year. Dorothy Kiyukan, the 
     Intensive Residential Guidance Program Director, was named 
     National and State Indian Educator of the year in 1994. Karen 
     White Horse was honored as Home Living Specialist of the Year 
     in 1991 by the National Indian School Board Association.
       For the last year, the SET Team (School Effectiveness 
     Team), and Curriculum Committee have been gathering data to 
     assess the direction of the school. The school plans to break 
     ground on a new educational building in the spring of 1996. 
     Plans include incorporation of the latest state-of-the-art 
     technology. Many curriculum changes are needed as the school 
     moves from text based curriculum to outcome based education, 
     with academic and behavioral objectives.


                         educational philosophy

       The educational philosophy of the Marty Indian School has 
     evolved since its inception. The school was founded because 
     the community leaders wanted education for their children to 
     prepare for the changes which they saw coming. The current 
     leaders of the school recognize the acceleration of change in 
     the world in which they live, and hold to the original basic 
     tenet of the founders--the education of their youth is vital 
     to the future of their culture and way of life.


                           mission statement

       The Mission of the Marty Indian School, in partnership with 
     the Yankton Sioux Tribe and its communities, is to offer a 
     safe supportive environment: to provide intellectual, social, 
     and cultural values needed to prepare our students for a 
     multi-cultural Circle of Life; and to instill self discipline 
     and respect for self and others.


                               education

       We believe that Marty should serve the educational needs of 
     all students. The educational needs of the students include 
     self-development in spiritual and moral values, in 
     intellectual insight, emotional stability, effective human 
     relations, and physical fitness. A special need of Marty 
     students is the awareness, understanding, appreciation and 
     enrichment of their nature culture, and being free of alcohol 
     and other drugs.

[[Page S9617]]

       We believe that Marty should serve the educational needs of 
     the adult Indians in the area and encourage community 
     involvement in the educational opportunities available at 
     Marty. It is our philosophy that Marty is the educational 
     center for the Yankton Sioux Reservation. We believe that 
     true education on any level is the instilling of the desire 
     for continued learning through the development of a healthy 
     curiosity, active interest, and enlivened ambition.


                                STUDENTS

       It is the philosophy of Marty to provide a safe and secure 
     learning and living environment to Marty students K-12. The 
     objectives are: To assume full responsibility for all 
     students--including their conduct, safety and presence--
     during the time they are in attendance, in class or residing 
     in the dormitories; and to provide accountability standards 
     by establishing and enforcing adequate student check out 
     procedures.


                               COMMUNITY

       It is the responsibility of Marty that the operation of 
     Marty is the responsibility of the Indian people themselves. 
     We believe that the successful operation of Marty depends on 
     the quality of service and the dedication of the people who 
     administer the various programs at Marty. We also believe 
     that Marty is the social service center the people of the 
     area, and the facilities and personnel of Marty are valuable 
     resources for effective educational projects and human 
     relations program.
       Objectives for the betterment of student dormitory life 
     are: to provide training programs to the dormitory staff by 
     developing a regular course of instruction and a 
     comprehensive in-service schedule in which each staff member 
     will learn the necessary techniques in providing a safe 
     domiciliary environment.


                            SCHOOL COMMUNITY

       Marty has as its goal the total education of its students 
     at Marty and the self-improvement of the people in the local 
     area. In order to accomplish this goal, objectives are 
     delineated in regard to education: Marty will maintain an 
     accredited school for grades K-12. As facilities and staff 
     are available, the specific needs of Indian students will be 
     served.


                          nps gateways funding

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
manager of the bill in a colloquy concerning the funding for National 
Park Service natural programs and the Rivers and Trails Conservation 
Assistance Program.
  It is my understanding that the FY 98 Interior Appropriations Bill 
provides an increase of $1 million for the RTCA program, and that the 
Committee has directed that this increase be specifically applied to 
activities within the scope of the existing program, not to new 
initiatives.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. In FY 97, the committee provided $200,000 from the RTCA 
account for the National Park Service's Chesapeake Bay Program Office 
to implement its Chesapeake Bay Action Agenda. The Committee's support 
enhanced NPS's ability to provide important financial and technical 
assistance to communities and organizations implementing their 
watershed protection, heritage area or heritage tourism strategic 
plans. These projects are terrific examples of community-led 
conservation, interpretation and preservation efforts that complement 
other Chesapeake Bay Program activities and illustrate NPS's unique 
role as a formal participant in the Bay Program.
  I note in the Committee report that a number of worthy projects have 
been mentioned as deserving of continued funding from this program. I 
would ask the Senator whether NPS Chesapeake Bay Program Office 
activities would also qualify as a continuing project to receive 
funding from RTCA.
  Mr. GORTON. Most certainly--The project the Senator describes appears 
to be a good example of the type of work intended to be funded with the 
additional funding provided by the Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the Chairman's observations and 
encourage the National Park Service to continue its support of this 
effort.


                         blue pike study (Usgs)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose 
of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the fish known as the blue 
pike.
  Mr. President, the blue pike was officially declared extinct in 1983 
under the Endangered Species Act. This highly valued species, prized 
for food and sport, prospered in Lakes Erie and Ontario prior to its 
disappearance in these lakes. But recently, I have been made aware of 
reports from the Erie, PA area that the blue pike can still be found in 
Canadian lakes. It this is so, we have an exceptional opportunity to 
bring a species back from the brink of extinction.
  Mr. President, I would suggest that the Biological Resources Division 
of the U.S. Geological Survey consider investigating the existence of 
the blue pike. The Chairman has shown excellent judgment in 
recommending a bill which includes a $1 million increase for 
restoration of the Great Lakes fisheries and habitats in this 
legislation, and I think this is an appropriate area where this 
important work can be carried out. I am advised that this study and 
restoration plan could cost $250,000. This is a small price to pay to 
realize the economic and environmental benefits this study, if 
successful, would surely produce. Accordingly, I look forward to 
working with my colleague from Washington to address the blue pike 
issue.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I agree that the blue pike study deserves thorough 
consideration by the U.S. Geological Survey.


    ensuring adequate law enforcement services on the yankton sioux 
                              reservation

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Johnson and I have recently been 
informed of two urgent matters on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in 
South Dakota that require immediate attention. The boundaries of the 
Yankton Reservation are the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. 
Although the final status of the case will be resolved in the coming 
year by the Supreme Court, lower court decisions have already 
transferred criminal jurisdiction over tribal members within the 
disputed boundaries of the reservation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. As a 
result, the tribe's patrol area has increased from 38,000 acres to 
400,000 acres and the number of arrests and detentions by the tribe has 
tripled. The cost of providing these law enforcement services has 
correspondingly increased from $56,000 to $308,721. We are informed the 
tribe is in need of $250,000 to accommodate these increased costs.
  Mr. JOHNSON. In addition, the reservation's juvenile detention center 
is undergoing a much needed, year-long renovation that has required the 
tribe to find alternative housing for the residents of the facility. 
The annual cost of placing the up to 20 juveniles the tribe houses per 
day in alternative facilities will cost at least $400,000. These 
resources cannot be found within the tribe's existing budget. Absent 
additional resources, Bureau of Land Affairs [BIA] officials state the 
tribe will be forced to release some offenders into the community and 
borrow money in order to incarcerate the most violent offenders.
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is our hope that BIA funds can be made available to 
the tribe for these pressing law enforcement needs during fiscal year 
1998. If there is special consideration for the funding requirements of 
underfunded tribes pursuant to section 118 of this bill, would you 
agree that the BIA should consider providing up to $650,000 to the 
Yankton Sioux Tribe for these purposes?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree that these are two serious problems. The Yankon 
Sioux Tribe is struggling to maintain adequate law enforcement services 
and provide housing for juveniles in the criminal justice system. If 
additional funds are available through the TPA program, then the tribe 
is encouraged to identify these requirements as a priority in its 
allocation of funds.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree as well. I recognize that funds are not available 
in the tribe's existing budget to accommodate these responsibilities. 
It is clear that alternative housing must be provided for juveniles in 
the criminal justice system while the existing detention facility is 
being renovated. These additional requirements should be considered in 
the allocation of TPA funds.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
assistance.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the colleagues for their attention to this 
important problem, and ask unanimous consent that a letter from Timothy 
Lake of the BIA providing additional details about these problems be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S9618]]


         U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 
           Affairs, Yankton Agency,
                                 Wagner, S.D., September 11, 1997.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     317 Hart Senate Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: This is in response to your request 
     for information as it relates to the existing reservation 
     boundary decision and its impacts on juvenile and adult 
     detention.
       First, the decision created an increase in Federal and 
     Tribal jurisdiction. Prior to June, 1995, we were exercising 
     criminal jurisdiction on 38,000 acres of trust land. The 
     State of South Dakota was asserting its jurisdiction on all 
     fee lands within the boundary. The reservation boundary 
     consist of 400,000 acres of land. Since June 1995, we have 
     been exercising jurisdiction over all Indians within the 
     400,000 acre reservation. As you can see, our area has 
     increased 10 fold. Much of the crime is committed in the 
     cities of Wagner, Lake Andes, Dante and Pickstown. These 
     cities were previously handled by city and county law 
     enforcement.
       Our adult prisoner care is contracted with Charles Mix 
     County, and Lower Brule Agency. To illustrate a impact is to 
     look at the previous year before the decision from June, 1994 
     to June 1995. We had a total of 672 arrest and prisoner 
     detention cost of $56,000.00. The first year after the 
     decision (June 1995 through June 1996) shows us arresting 
     2,078 and detention cost of $308,721.00. Another interesting 
     illustration is the road miles we previously patrolled. The 
     BIA had 22 miles and now we patrol 314 miles within the 
     reservation.
       The Yankton Sioux Tribe was operating a juvenile hold-over 
     facility that was not intended for long term juvenile 
     detention but turned out that way. The Tribe was fortunate to 
     receive a grant (1.3 million) from the Justice Department to 
     renovate their hold-over facility to an approved juvenile 
     detention center. The Tribe was incurring the expense at 
     $250,000.00 per year to house juveniles.
       Because of liability concerns, lack of funding, and the 
     renovation project, the Tribe closed the facility at the end 
     of August. The facility should be fully approved and 
     operational by October 1998. We now have no where on the 
     reservations to house juvenile offenders. I have made 
     arrangements with the juvenile detention facility at Kyle, 
     South Dakota. They will house ten of our juveniles at a rate 
     of $50.00 per day per juvenile. This equates to a cost of 
     $182,500.00 per year. The daily average of juveniles that the 
     Tribe was holding in their hold-over facility was 20.
       I will need to locate another juvenile facility to hold the 
     balance. I am sure the cost to house the remaining juveniles 
     at another facility will be more costly than the Kyle, SD 
     facility. We must also deal with the time, manpower and 
     vehicle cost to run these juveniles to Kyle and wherever. It 
     is easy to see that we can spend $400,000.00 a year on 
     juvenile detention. Once the Tribe's renovation project is 
     completed, we must begin to pay the cost to house our 
     juvenile offenders at their facility.
       There are four (4) full-time FIA police officers at this 
     agency. The Yankton Sioux Tribe was successful in securing 
     six (6) additional officers through the Justice Department 
     COPS Fast program. However, COPS fast funds can only be used 
     for salaries so we have to provide these officers with 
     equipment as well as vehicles to patrol.
       As the Yankton Sioux Tribe has communicated to you, the 
     Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) process does not allow for 
     such a large increase to our law enforcement program. We can 
     not maintain our fiduciary responsibility by decreasing all 
     reservation programs by $650,000.00 and increasing law 
     enforcement by this amount. The whole reservation TPA budget 
     for fiscal year 97 if 1.6 million. The Tribe will need these 
     funds added to its TPA base.
       I hope I have answered your inquiry to your satisfaction. I 
     appreciate the interest that you have shown on the impacts of 
     the reservation boundary decision.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Timothy C. Lake,
                                                   Superintendent.


  bureau of indian affairs funding for the northwest indian fisheries 
                      commission and other issues

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, much tribal management of salmon 
resources in western Washington State is conducted through the 
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Historically, the Commission 
received its funding directly from the Bureau of Indian Affairs under 
the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty 
accounts under trust accounts. Beginning five years ago, however, a 
portion of these monies was re-routed for administrative purposes 
within the BIA system, passing through the Tribal/Agency Operations, 
Tribal Priority Allocation line item in the BIA appropriation. This 
system worked fine for several years, but funding reductions to Tribal/
Agency Operations in recent years have resulted in an approximately 13 
percent cut to these accounts. Now these funds are being rerouted back 
to the original line items of Western Washington--Boldt Implementation 
and Pacific Salmon Treaty in the trust accounts, but at the reduced 
level.
  Since both the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and Pacific 
Salmon Treaty accounts were only included in the Tribal Priority 
Allocations system for administrative, pass-through purposes, it is 
inappropriate for these line items to be continued at only the reduced 
level. Full funding for these accounts should be restored. Congress did 
not reduce funding for the trust accounts. In addition, Congress has 
annually adopted the Pacific Salmon Treaty budget as developed by the 
U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, and at no time has this 
funding been reduced. Also, within the FY-98 funding levels, Tribal 
Priority Allocations are being restored, but not the Western 
Washington--Boldt Implementation or Pacific Salmon Treaty funds. These 
factors provide significant justification for restoring these subject 
funds in the FY-98 budget. While the trust account budget is now set, 
the BIA may utilize appropriate funds from another account, such as 
Tribal Priority Allocations, to fully fund these important programs of 
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I agree, the BIA should have the ability 
to restore funding for the Western Washington--Boldt Implementation and 
Pacific Salmon Treaty accounts from Tribal Priority Allocations. In 
addition, I suggest that the BIA and the Department of Interior modify 
their budget proposal for the next fiscal year to ensure that the trust 
account includes full funding for Western Washington--Boldt 
Implementation and Pacific Salmon Treaty.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the House Committee Report (105-163) for 
the Interior Appropriations bill recommends that within the $3,000,000 
provided for the ``jobs in the woods'' initiative under non-recurring 
programs, Operation of Indian Programs, $400,000 should continue to be 
used by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for the Wildstock 
Restoration Initiative. Although the Senate Committee Report does not 
mention this account, does the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senior Senator from Washington, agree with the guidance 
of House Committee Report?
  Mr. GORTON. The ``jobs in the woods'' initiative is an important 
program for displaced timber workers in western Washington. The 
Wildstock Restoration Initiative is a key component of the overall 
initiative. I will support efforts in the Conference Committee to 
secure funding for the Wildstock Restoration Initiative.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate Committee Report on this 
appropriations measure directs the Bureau of Indian Affairs on page 52 
of the report to include a private sector representative on the BIA 
task force to implement recommendations of an Inspector General's audit 
of the Wapato Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation. In 
addition to this representative, it was the Chairman's and my intention 
to also include a representative of the Yakama Indian Nation on the 
task force.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct. The BIA task force on the Wapato 
Irrigation District should include a private sector representative and 
a tribal representative.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his cooperation.


                         kaiparowits coal basin

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd, that it seems to me, in light of the scientific 
disagreements between the recently conducted BXG findings and the 
ongoing data collection and analysis by the Utah Geological Survey, 
there is sufficient reason to revisit the BXG study regarding the 
Kaiparowits Coal Basin located in the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument. Do my colleagues from Washington and West Virginia 
agree that the significant disparate findings of these studies warrant 
additional review before the BXG work is accepted as fact?
  Mr. GORTON. In view of some of the concerns which have been raised, 
BLM should consider working with all the experts, including the Utah 
Geological

[[Page S9619]]

Survey, to ensure that there is an accurate reading of the current and 
future state of the Kaiparowits Plateau coal.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I share the sentiments expressed by the 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleagues for their responses.


                    allegheny national forest (USFS)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose 
of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the Allegheny National Forest in 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. President, I would suggest that the U.S. Forest Service consider 
the possibility of funding the following three projects, all of which 
would enhance visitors' experiences in the Allegheny National Forest.
  The first project is for the construction of a central office in 
Marienville, Pennsylvania. For more than a decade, the Allegheny 
National Forest has requested funding to carry out this project. 
Currently, Allegheny National Forest Service employees work out of two 
small office buildings, a trailer, and two warehouses located 
separately from the district office. Construction of a central office 
will help alleviate additional travel and communications costs as well 
as improve the efficiencies in work coordination.
  The second project involves the rehabilitation of three boat-access 
campgrounds on the Allegheny Reservoir. These sites were constructed in 
the 1960s, but they have each outlived their expected life spans. 
Completion of this project would go a long way to improving access for 
the estimated 11,800 visitors who use these campsites each year.
  The last project concerns rehabilitation of the Buckaloons Recreation 
Area. This area is located within the designated Wild and Scenic River 
corridor of the Allegheny River. I am advised that visitors' complaints 
focus on water facilities, parking, and access to the area. The funds 
needed for this project would improve the Buckaloons Recreation Area to 
allow Pennsylvanians and others to more fully enjoy the Allegheny 
National Forest.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from 
Washington to address these three important funding issues.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am aware of the importance of the Allegheny National 
Forest to Pennsylvania and I believe that these three projects deserve 
thorough consideration by the U.S. Forest Service. Accordingly, I 
intend to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania to secure funding for 
these important rehabilitation projects in the Allegheny National 
Forest.


                  recreation fee demonstration program

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Forest and Public Lands of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
on an issue related to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. In the 
first year of operation of Fee Demonstration projects, flaws in the 
program's application are coming to light. These are flaws that I 
believe can be corrected through a clarification of the policy 
articulated by Congress in 1996.
  I am generally pleased with the overall results of the Recreation Fee 
Demonstration Program. As various Fee Demo projects have been 
implemented, some problems have occurred. Public acceptance of new or 
higher fees has been enthusiastic in some quarters and hostile in 
others. However, the program has shown promise overall.
  Constituents have brought to my attention the threat of private 
sector displacement by recreation managers in some National Forests. As 
private permit terms expire, it appears at some Fee Demo sites there is 
an intent to discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of 
recreation goods and services. In other instances, the agencies are 
choosing to go into direct competition with the private sector. The 
Forest Service will now be offering so-called Heritage Expeditions, 
which may evolve as whitewater rafting expeditions, archaeological 
digs, or expeditions into Indian Country--activities offered in 
abundance by community recreation programs, outfitters and guides, 
environmental educators, lodges, marinas and dude ranches throughout 
rural America.
  If this type of activity is allowed under Fee Demo, more and more 
concessions may likely be taken from private sector operators and 
placed into the hands of federal employees to operate. At a time when 
federal employment rolls are being steadily trimmed, new employees will 
be required at recreation sites to collect fees, perform maintenance, 
plan and participate in interpretive and recreational activities. I do 
not believe this was the intent of the Fee Demonstration Program.
  This problem seems to be developing in other states. We need to send 
a clear message to the land management agencies involved in the Fee 
Demo project that Congress did not authorize this program to enable the 
agencies to displace or discourage existing and future investment by 
the private sector.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Arizona. 
Idaho has experienced similar problems with implementation of the 
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in this first season of operation.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, has identified a serious 
problem: use of Fee Demo authority to put the government into direct 
competition with the private sector. It has happened in Idaho under Fee 
Demo this summer, and I appreciate the gentleman's effort to bring this 
unfortunate development in the implementation of the Fee Demo program 
to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate.
  It was on the Wild and Scenic section of Idaho's Snake River in 
Hell's Canyon that the Forest Service conducted a pilot Heritage 
Expedition trip in July. The Heritage Expedition element of the Fee 
Demo program will be conducted regionwide next year in the Pacific 
Northwest and in the Southwest Regions of the Forest Service, and I'm 
told that the concept may be adopted nationally in the very near 
future.
  Essentially, the new Heritage Expedition initiative puts the Forest 
Service into direct competition with an adventure travel industry that 
is already highly competitive. Dozens of these businesses compete with 
each other at every primary tourist destination in the country. 
Thousands more have invested private capital to create and sustain 
unique market niches on the fringes of the National Park System, or 
tucked away in some remote corner of the National Forest.
  At Hells Canyon, the demand for access to the river and along trails 
and limited camping facilities is very competitive and increasingly 
difficult for resource managers to resolve. Environmentalists hold 
strong views that the river corridor is being trampled by boaters and 
hikers. Boaters cling tenaciously to levels of float boat and jetboat 
use that have increased steadily over decades. The Forest Service has 
to date been entirely unable to reduce conflicts between these various 
users groups, let alone soften the shrill cry from those who would 
radically reduce use altogether. Congress has stepped in to arbitrate a 
portion of these issues, and the situation is now the subject of rather 
heated congressional hearings.
  In pricing and advertising a whitewater Heritage Expedition through 
Hells Canyon last July, the Forest Service executed an extraordinary 
piece of business. It advertised a ``deluxe, fully catered'' whitewater 
and camping trip in which the fourth night would be spent ``in the 
luxury of'' a historic lodge. The four-day trip was offered, and I 
understand fully booked, for the ``fee'' (the agency's term of choice) 
of $1,740.
  The Forest Service did use the services of a river outfitter in 
conducting this trip and spent the final night at a commercial inn. 
There may have been other director costs not evident from the agency's 
advertisment of this trip in the Internet. But, I do not believe that 
this is what we contemplated when we approved the Fee Demonstration.
  It's important to note that a commercial operator in Hells Canyon 
would not be allowed by Forest Service river managers to charge the 
public such an exorbitant fee, no matter what amenities were tacked 
onto the basic outdoor experience.

[[Page S9620]]

  It was advertised by the Forest Service that a portion of its fee 
would directly fund ``preservation, protection, and future management 
of Hells Canyon's irreplaceable heritage resources.'' When the job of 
analyzing this initial pilot Demo Fee program is complete, it be 
important to know how much agency staff time and support costs were 
diverted from normal responsibilities in order to plan, package, market 
and conduct this trip.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Arizona. Such 
activities as running expeditions were not what was intended when we 
approved the Fee Demonstration Program.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my colleagues for bringing this matter to the 
Committee's attention. In a letter to Regional Foresters on February 
25, 1997, Forest Service Chief Dombeck clearly stated that the Fee 
Demonstration is not intended to displace concessionaires. That was 
clearly not the intent of this Committee when we passed the Fee 
Demonstration Program. I thank the gentleman for calling this to the 
attention of the Committee.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Burns and I see the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations on the floor 
and we would like to engage him in a discussion regarding assistance 
from the Department of Energy (DOE) to help finance the construction of 
a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) now produced as a waste 
gas at the Great Plains Gasification (Great Plains) plant near Beulah, 
North Dakota to existing oil fields to be used for enhanced tertiary 
oil recovery.
  Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to discuss this matter with my 
colleagues.
  Mr. DORGAN. We thank the Chairman. This project will enhance tertiary 
oil recovery efforts in North America which will help the United States 
and Canada secure greater energy independence from foreign oil. It is 
also critical to the long-term operation of Great Plains, which has 
been a priority for the federal government since it sold the plant to 
the Dakota Gasification Company in the late 1980s.
  The financial assistance Senator Burns and I are proposing would 
consist of a loan from funds currently available to DOE in a Great 
Plains trust fund. DOE staff has reviewed the details of the CO2 
project and the Department believes that a loan is appropriate if so 
directed in an appropriations bill.
  Is the Chairman willing to work with us and the House conferees to 
include Statement of Managers language in the conference agreement that 
permits DOE to provide such a loan at reasonable terms to the owners of 
Great Plains and to the government?
  Mr. GORTON. I am unfamiliar with the details of the proposed CO2 
project, but I can assure my colleagues from North Dakota and Montana 
that I will work with you, Senator Byrd and the House conferees to 
include Statement of Managers language allowing the Department of 
Energy to make a loan to the owners of Great Plains for the CO2 
project, provided the project is consistent with our country's overall 
energy and environmental policy objectives and is worthy of federal 
support.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wish to thank the Chairman for his cooperation.
  Mr. BURNS. I am also supportive of this loan for the construction of 
a pipeline to transport the excess CO2 from the Great Plains 
Gasification plant to existing oil fields to enhance tertiary oil 
recovery. Some portions of these fields lie within the boundaries of my 
state of Montana, and would assist with the economic development of 
this area. I would like to thank both the Chairman and my colleague 
from North Dakota for working with me to reach some sort of 
understanding on the importance of language in the conference report.


    Regarding the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the chairman knows, the Forest Service 
recently completed the consolidation of the Intermountain and Rocky 
Mountain Research Stations in Fort Collins Colorado. I had some serious 
reservations with this consolidation, but in the interest of reducing 
the federal budget, I reluctantly agreed to allow the consolidation to 
proceed. Allow me to share with my colleagues what some of those 
concerns were.
  I was concerned that the proposed merger would actually produce the 
cost savings promised by the Forest Service. I was further concerned 
that any administrative savings would be offset by increased travel 
costs of staff traveling to Fort Collins. And since the consolidated 
center would be responsible for providing research for approximately 60 
percent of the nation's forest lands, I was particularly concerned that 
the new center would have the ability to provide quality services to my 
constituents once consolidation removed the administrative process one 
step further from Utah. Finally, I was most concerned that the 
employees currently stationed in Utah would be jeopardized by 
consolidation. While I received numerous assurances that no positions 
will be eliminated in Utah due to consolidation, it was still unclear 
that the employees based in Utah would continue to have substantive 
research responsibilities.
  As I mentioned, despite these reservations, I reluctantly concluded 
that the merger should proceed. I sought your assurance that the 
Committee would revisit the consolidation next year to determine if the 
promised benefits and savings have indeed been realized. If these 
savings have not been met, I requested that the committee take the 
appropriate action to rectify the situation. Is it still the Chairman's 
intent to revisit the consolidation?
  Mr. GORTON. I recall the Senator from Utah raising these issues in a 
letter to me last March. I again say to him that the Committee remains 
concerned that the estimated savings provided by the Forest Service may 
well not be achieved. It would be an unfortunate waste of taxpayer 
dollars to have permitted this consolidation to go forward if the 
Forest Service fails to reach the savings promised. The Committee would 
be happy to revisit the consolidation issue next spring during the 
hearing process.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his efforts.


                           newfound gap road

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with 
Chairman Gorton about Newfound Gap Road in western North Carolina. The 
National Park Service is responsible for the maintenance of this road, 
which runs through Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and it is the 
major route for many residents of the area. The road reaches elevations 
of 5,000 feet, so there is substantial snowfall in the winter, and I am 
concerned about the snowfall removal effort from the NPS. The road was 
closed on 42 days over the 1995-96 winter, and it was closed on 13 days 
over the 1996-97 winter, but the last winter was exceptionally mild. 
The NPS pledged increased efforts, but I am unaware of real changes in 
their methods, and I am concerned about prospects for this winter. Is 
the chairman aware of these problems?
  Mr. GORTON. I am well aware of this issue. The Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park received a $1.06 million increase for Fiscal Year 1997 
and a $400,000 increase for fiscal year 1998. This is a large amount of 
money, and I expect it to be well spent. This committee is reluctant to 
seize the management prerogatives of the NPS, but I want to ensure that 
this road is maintained for the people of western North Carolina, and 
is available for use for as many days as reasonably achievable. The 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees have previously expressed 
concern about Park Service maintenance of this road, and I expect the 
Service to be responsive to our concerns.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am pleased to hear that the Committee understands 
the importance of this issue. The NPS expects to spend a lot of money 
for personnel costs, but I don't see evidence of a real commitment to 
increased maintenance of Newfound Gap Road. The NPS produced a plan 
last year to answer our concerns, but it was a superficial document 
that offered little encouragement, so I am glad to hear the chairman 
state that he expects NPS to be more responsive. This is important to 
the community, and I hear support for these people, but the NPS will 
need to take concrete steps to resolve this issue. The NPS cannot use 
salt on this road because of environmental concerns, so it needs to 
look at new equipment such as motorgraders, but I do not hear much 
about that. Robert Stanton, the new NPS director, told

[[Page S9621]]

me that he is eager to work with us. He is a good man, and I am 
confident that he will make some changes, but the NPS budget plan for 
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park concerns me.
  Mr. GORTON. The Park Service has ample flexibility to consider 
equipment purchases if that is necessary for proper maintenance. The 
Director is aware of the problem and I encourage him to remain 
attentive to the situation so that this road remains open as much as 
possible through the winter.


                       michigan lakes and streams

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
acquisition of 7600 acres of private land located in Michigan's Huron 
and Manistee National Forests by the U.S. Forest Service.
  As the result of a settlement between the State of Michigan and one 
of Michigan's power companies, 11,000 acres of the utility's land are 
being--or have been--transferred to the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust. 
The trust is a coalition of the State's environmental agencies and 
several conservation groups which was established as part of the 
settlement and is authorized to sell these lands in order to capitalize 
a trust fund that will support projects to restore the Great Lakes 
fishery.
  Approximately 7,600 of the settlement acres lie within or along the 
boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forest, and a significant 
portion are located along the popular Au Sable and Manistee Rivers. 
Both these rivers boast some of the State's best fishing. The 
acquisition of these parcels by the Forest Service would ensure the 
protection of the water and forests and species located within them.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my colleague would yield for a moment, it is my 
understanding that the bill appropriates $700 million from the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] for land acquisition which have been set 
aside for a variety of projects, some of which will be identified after 
consultation with the administration and the House. I believe 
approximately $285 million of those funds have not been designated for 
specific projects.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The senior Senator from Michigan is correct. These funds 
have been budgeted but have not yet been earmarked for specific 
purchases.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my colleague will yield further, I think it is also 
important to point out that the sale of these inholdings by the Great 
Lakes Fishery Trust will help generate funds for fishery enhancement 
programs and preserve critically important frontage along rivers that 
flow into the Great Lakes. If, however, these lands are not purchased 
quickly, then the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust could face significant 
costs, including taxes and administrative fees. Such costs would put 
the trust in the uncomfortable position of either having to sell these 
lands commercially or paying these costs and thereby reducing the flow 
of funds destined for financing improvements in the Great Lakes 
fishery.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. My colleague is again correct. the Great Lakes Fisheries 
Trust and the Forest Service have a great opportunity to protect some 
of Michigan's pristine natural resources. Unfortunately, if we do not 
act soon, this opportunity will quickly slip away.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Can my colleague tell me whether the U.S. Forest Service 
has expressed an interest in purchasing these lands?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, the Forest Service has expressed its desire to 
purchase these acres. I understand that this acquisition is on the 
Forest Service's priority list.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senators from Michigan for bringing this to 
my attention. I understand how important this issue is to them both and 
will give it due consideration as the conferees consider Federal land 
purchases during the conference.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman for his consideration and hard work in support of 
this Nation's parks, national forests, and wildlife refuges.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator's consideration and my colleague 
from Michigan's efforts and interest on this matter. Also, I want the 
chairman and Senator Byrd to know that I have communicated our interest 
to the administration and urged that this item be put on their priority 
list.


chickamauga-chattanooga national military park highway road relocation 
                                project

  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield to the senior Senator from 
Georgia for a question.
  Mr. COVERDELL. As the Senator well knows, Federal funding for the 
Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park highway road relocation 
project is very important to myself and the State of Georgia. Your 
previous support for this project has been especially helpful and 
appreciated. I note that in the fiscal year 1998 Interior 
Appropriations Committee report, on page 38, it states ``that the Park 
Service intends to allocate $2.8 million in fiscal year 1997 to 
continue work on the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park 
highway road relocation project, and that additional funds will be 
allocated in fiscal year 1999 from Federal Highway Lands Program 
funds.'' In addition, the report also states that ``the committee 
supports efforts to complete this project in fiscal year 1999.''
  I appreciate the subcommittee chairman's interest in this important 
issue. However, I am concerned that it appears that no funding will be 
allocated for this project in fiscal year 1998. This has been an 
ongoing road construction project and any further delay in its 
completion will cause additional burdens to my State. It is my 
understanding that the Park Service has made assurances that it will 
provide at least $8.85 million in fiscal year 1998 from its Federal 
Highway Lands Program funds. Is the Senator aware of these assurances 
made by the Park Service?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. I am aware that the Park Service has indicated that 
it will provide an estimated $8.85 million in fiscal year 1998 from its 
Federal Highway Lands Program funds to continue work on the U.S. 
Highway 27 bypass around the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military 
Park in Georgia. The Senator should be aware, however, that the current 
authorization for FLHP expires with ISTEA on September 30, 1997, so any 
allocations for fiscal year 1998 are dependent upon enactment of a new 
authorization and evaluation of the total funding allowed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. If the subcommittee chairman would further yield, it 
is my understanding that the House's version of the fiscal year 1998 
Interior appropriations bill includes report language which reflects 
the Park Service's assurance and sets aside a minimum of $8.85 million 
for this project. I believe it is critical there be no further delays 
in completion of this project or gaps in funding from the Park Service. 
Would the chairman be inclined to include language similar to the House 
in the conference report to the fiscal year 1998 Interior 
appropriations bill?
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to work with the senior Senator from 
Georgia on this issue. I realize how important the Chickamauga-
Chattanooga project is to you and the State of Georgia. I appreciate 
all your hard work and diligence on this project.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the chairman for his help. I yield the floor.


              RenOvaTiOn of MonTezUma CreeK HeaLth cLiNiC

  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the distinguished Chairman, Senator Gorton, for 
his support on a matter of particular importance to the Utah Navajo 
population of San Juan County. The issue involves the Montezuma Creek 
Health Clinic in Montezuma Creek, UT.
  For nearly 3 years, my colleague Senator Hatch and I have worked 
together to improve the delivery of health care services to the 
residents of San Juan County. This area is located in an extremely 
remote part of southeastern Utah and is the home of approximately 6,000 
Navajos. The Montezuma Creek Clinic is very important to this rural 
community. However, the existing facility is in extremely poor 
condition and has undergone numerous repairs. The clinic comprises a 
patchwork of a mobile trailer connected to a permanent structure which 
is approximately 40 years old.
  In an effort to make improvements to the clinic, the committee 
provided

[[Page S9622]]

$100,000 for planning and renovation of the existing structure. These 
funds will be matched by the State of Utah and the Utah Navajo Trust 
Fund that collectively will provide at least $300,000 for renovation of 
the facility. However, I do have a question for the Chairman regarding 
the intent of the committee report language with respect to how these 
funds can be spent.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to provide a clarification.
  Mr. BENNETT. The committee report language on page 98 states: ``The 
Committee does not intend for any of these funds to be used for 
facility or program [expansion], but rather, for improvement of 
existing conditions.'' My concern is over the word ``expansion.'' As a 
practical matter, the renovation of the facility may result in an 
expansion of the overall structure. This is especially apparent since 
the clinic is partially housed in a temporary structure and replacing 
it may, in fact, increase the overall square footage of the clinic. 
They clinic's staff also informs me there is a critical need to 
increase the size of the emergency room as well as add additional 
examination rooms in order to handle the current heavy caseload. 
Moreover, in order to comply with Federal and State building codes, 
some expansion of the facility will be needed. Clearly, these measures 
are designed to accommodate existing services and, as such, should not 
be viewed as an expansion per se.
  Mr. GORTON. I understand the Senator's concerns. The committee 
intends that the funds are used toward the design and construction of 
renovating and improving the existing facility. Making improvements to 
accommodate existing services is certainly acceptable. Such measures 
would include replacing temporary housing with a permanent addition as 
well as enlarging the emergency room, or adding examination rooms. The 
use of the word expansion in the committee report was used to indicate 
that the committee cannot ensure that additional funding--beyond what 
is currently provided in this bill--will be provided by virtue of 
facility improvements being made at this location. If additional costs 
are anticipated because of a larger facility than presently exists, the 
committee will consider these needs but can make no guarantees.
  Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Chairman's position. The funds provided 
by the committee are a positive step in improving the conditions at the 
Montezuma Creek. I think my colleague for the clarification and, once 
again, appreciate his support for this important project. I also want 
to thank Senator Hatch for his support and work on this project.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, increasingly frequent catastrophic die-
offs of fish and waterfowl at the Salton Sea have led experts to 
conclude that the entire ecosystem is in crisis and could perish in the 
next five to ten years unless dramatic measures are taken. The crisis 
has dire implications for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway because 
the Salton Sea is a critical stop for species migrating along the 
Pacific Coast. Urgent scientific research is underway, but scientists 
have not yet identified the cause of the environmental crisis. The 
area's agriculture, wildlife, water usage, and environmental health 
systems are in jeopardy.
  Another massive die-off is occurring now. Previously, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey worked in 
partnership with the California Department of Fish and Game to deal the 
diagnosis of dead species, rehabilitation of sick birds, and the 
disposal of carcasses to avert the spread of disease. Unfortunately, 
just a few weeks ago, California withdrew most of its field personnel 
due to costs and concerns about the potential health threat to state 
field personnel. California's withdrawal has resulted in a significant 
increase in the workload of an already undersized federal staff at the 
Sea.
  I therefore ask the Chairman of the subcommittee to work with me to 
include the following report language in conference.

       Spurred by the accelerated rate of species decline at the 
     Salton Sea, the Committee directs the Secretary of the 
     Interior to create a plan for Department of the Interior 
     activities in the Salton Sea region in Southern California; 
     to submit the plan to Congress no later than April 15, 1998; 
     and to make every effort to consider any preliminary 
     recommendations in the FY 1999 Budget request. The plan 
     should seek to be as comprehensive as possible, and to be 
     compatible with important factors including water transfer 
     plans, environmental restoration needs, economic factors 
     (including agriculture) and the rights of Native Americans. 
     The Department shall develop the plan in cooperation with the 
     State of California and the Salton Sea Authority. In addition 
     the Committee urges the Department to consider the funding 
     needs of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge for 
     operations including laboratory support from the U.S. 
     Geological Survey, supplemental field staff during declared 
     die-off episodes to recover dead and dying wildlife and to 
     monitor wildlife health at the Sea, on-site and remote field 
     hospital operations for sick wildlife from the sea, 
     incineration and disposal facilities for dead wildlife, and 
     for high priority research needs identified by the 1997 
     Salton Sea Needs Assessment Workshop.

  Mr. GORTON. I recognize the importance of addressing the emerging 
crisis at the Salton Sea. I share your concerns, and will carefully 
consider this language for possible inclusion in the Statement of 
Managers accompanying the conference report on the Interior bill. I 
would note, however, that the funding constraints under which the 
Interior agencies operate do not allow for agencies to perform tasks 
that should rightly he the responsibility of the States. Should the 
conferees request the report suggested by the Senator for California, 
such report should include a discussion of an appropriate division of 
responsibilities among the federal government, the State of California, 
and other relevant agencies.


        Technical Corrections to the Utah Miner's Hospital Grant

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly the 
technical corrections made in this bill to Section 116 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. I wish to point out to my 
colleagues that the original language was intended to ratify the State 
of Utah's legislative decision to allocate all funds generated by two 
federal land grants for a miner's hospital to the University of Utah in 
Salt Lake City for construction and support of a physical 
rehabilitation center. However, the original language inadvertently 
failed to include the statutory citation of the first of the two land 
grants for a miner's hospital. The technical amendments correct this 
omission, clarifying Congress' ratification of the Utah legislature's 
actions with respect to funds generated from miners' hospital land 
grants in both 1894 and 1929.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Utah for the clarification. Will 
the Senator briefly outline the history of these land grants?
  Mr. BENNETT. Certainly. In the Utah Enabling Act, Congress granted 
the new State of Utah the right to select 50,000 acres of 
unappropriated federal lands for support of a miner's hospital for 
disabled miners. This 1894 grant was supplemented in 1929 by the grant 
of an additional 50,000 acres. In the late 1950's, the Utah 
legislature, with the support of the United Mineworkers of America, 
determined that accumulated funds from these two grants could best be 
used for the construction of a rehabilitation center that would serve 
both miners and the general public, rather than for the construction of 
a standalone hospital for the limited number of disabled miners in the 
state. This facility was constructed in 1965 and operated under the 
supervision of an advisory commission that included representatives of 
the State's mining unions. Subsequent state legislation has provided 
that ongoing funds generated from the two land grants are to be used to 
support this rehabilitation center.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator explain for the benefit of our 
colleagues the need for Congressional ratification of the Utah 
legislature's actions concerning these grants?
  Mr. BENNETT. Although the rehabilitation center was constructed with 
the support of the United Mineworkers of America, and has been open to 
use by the state's miners, some have questioned whether the Utah 
legislature was permitted under the Utah Enabling Act to use funds 
generated from these grants for a rehabilitation center open to both 
miners and the general public, as opposed to a facility open only to 
miners. Section 116 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
1997 was intended as Congressional approval of the Utah legislature's 
actions with respect to use of accumulated and ongoing funds from these 
land grants.

[[Page S9623]]

However, as I have noted, that Act referred only to the 1929 land grant 
and inadvertently failed to cite the 1894 land grant. These technical 
amendments correct that omission.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for the clarification. I am pleased 
that we can now bring this issue to closure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2107, the 
fiscal year 1998 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill.
  I congratulate my good friend, the senior Senator from Washington, 
for his diligence in fashioning this important appropriations measure. 
He has done a masterful job throughout the process.
  Mr. President, the pending bill provides $13.7 billion in new budget 
authority and $9.1 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the 
Department of Interior, the Forest Service of the Department of 
Agriculture, the energy conservation and fossil energy research and 
development programs of the Department of Energy, the Indian Health 
Service, and arts-related agencies.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill provides a total of $13.8 
billion in budget authority and $13.7 billion in outlays for these 
programs for fiscal year 1998.
  I support the bill with the adoption of the manager's amendment to 
bring the bill within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget 
authority. The reported bill is $38 million in outlays under the 
subcommittee's allocation.
  It has been my privilege to serve on the subcommittee with the 
distinguished chairman. I appreciate the subcommittee's support for 
several priority projects in my home State of New Mexico.
  I support the bill with the exception of the provisions relating to 
Indian tribes, which I will speak to later in the debate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee's scoring of the Interior and related agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

              H.R. 2107, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 1998: SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                         [Fiscal Year 1998, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Defense       Nondefense         Crime         Mandatory         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............          13,701  ..............              55          13,756
    Outlays.....................  ..............          13,691  ..............              50          13,741
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority............  ..............          13,700  ..............              55          13,755
    Outlays.....................  ..............          13,729  ..............              50          13,779
President's request:
    Budget authority............  ..............          13,747  ..............              55          13,802
    Outlays.....................  ..............          13,771  ..............              50          13,821
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority............  ..............          12,980  ..............              55          13,035
    Outlays.....................  ..............          13,382  ..............              50          13,432
Senate-reported bill compared
 to:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority........  ..............               1  ..............  ..............               1
        Outlays.................  ..............             -38  ..............  ..............             -38
    President's request:
        Budget authority........  ..............             -46  ..............  ..............             -46
        Outlays.................  ..............             -80  ..............  ..............             -80
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority........  ..............             721  ..............  ..............             721
        Outlays.................  ..............             309  ..............  ..............             309
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

                         timber road subsidies

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted against the Bryan 
amendment regarding timber road construction subsidies. I would like to 
take this opportunity to explain my reasons for doing so.
  First, and most important, I believe the amendment goes too far. I 
have consistently opposed the current subsidy because I believe it is 
unfair to use the value of natural resources that belong to all 
taxpayers to offset the full cost of access roads needed by the timber 
industry to harvest those resources for their own profit. I agree with 
the proponents of the amendment that this is nothing more than a 
handout of federal assets at a loss to the taxpayers.
  However, because many of these roads serve dual or multiple purposes, 
I do not believe it is fair to shift the cost entirely to the timber 
industry, unless the industry is the only user of the road. This is a 
position I had clearly staked out in an amendment I offered in late 
1995. In that amendment, I proposed to change the current system to 
require timber companies to pay a fair share of the costs of 
construction and maintenance of forest access roads. If, for example, 
the road would be used half of the time for recreation, maintenance or 
firefighting access, or some other legitimate purpose, then the timber 
industry would only have to pay for half of road construction. If, 
however, the road would only serve the timber company, the company 
would pay the entire cost of construction.
  I believe this is a fair means of allocating responsibility for 
construction and maintenance costs--based on actual use of the road. 
The Bryan amendment would have gone much too far and unfairly penalized 
the timber industry.
  Second, the amendment would have cut $10 million from the Forest 
Service budget for road construction and maintenance. Anyone familiar 
with some of the roads through our nation's forest lands recognizes the 
need for more funding, not less, for maintenance of existing roads. 
Even supporters of the amendment pointed out that the Forest Service 
has a $440 million backlog of road maintenance needs for existing 
roads.
  Many of these roads were built and paid for by the timber industry, 
and have since been turned over to the Forest Service. Many of them 
remain multi-purpose roads, providing ready access for the timber 
industry as well as the public and others to our forest areas. The 
Forest Service budget for maintenance of these roads is limited, and 
the Bryan amendment would have cut funding that could be used to 
maintain existing forest roads.
  Finally, the amendment does not adequately protect the counties from 
a cut in the funding they receive from timber sales. Because the timber 
industry would be required to fully fund access roads, companies would 
likely submit lower bids for the timber. County governments rely on 
revenues from timber sales to maintain their own roadways. Because the 
money counties receive is based on a fixed share of total timber 
revenues, a smaller pot would mean less money to the counties. The 
National League of Counties has written a very strong letter opposing 
the Bryan amendment.
  Let me address briefly the concerns of environmental organizations 
about the timber access road program. I believe we have to strike a 
balance in our forest management policy between preservation and 
production, focusing on healthy, well-maintained forests that will be 
preserved for future generations.
  However, I doubt seriously that eliminating the road construction 
subsidy for timber companies would result in less logging of our 
forests. The key to limiting logging and road-building in our forests 
is a rational, reasonable forest management policy. In fact, because 
the revenue from timber sales would decline with lower timber bids, our 
forests could actually be harmed.

[[Page S9624]]

The Forest Service would have even less funding to carry out its 
important preservation and management activities, and those wishing to 
utilize these roads for recreational access to forest lands would be 
denied that opportunity.
  Mr. President, this amendment was cast as an anti-pork amendment. My 
commitment to eliminating pork-barrel spending is quite well known to 
my colleagues, whether it be earmarks in an annual appropriations bill 
or corporate subsidies. But it is important that we look at the details 
of this amendment, because it would have had serious consequences for 
local communities and others who use these roads that I do not believe 
the authors intended, and which have nothing to do with pork.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I voted against the Bryan 
amendment. I will continue to pursue elimination of unfair and 
inequitable corporate subsidies, including the current timber access 
road subsidy. One mechanism which would help in the effort to eliminate 
such subsidies is an independent, non-partisan commission to study all 
corporate subsidies and prepare a package of recommendations for 
Congressional review and action, and I have authored a bill, S. 207, 
with several of my colleagues to set up such a commission. And I am 
prepared to work with Senator Bryan and my colleagues to craft an 
amendment to eliminate this inequitable corporate subsidy and put in 
place a fair and equitable program to share the costs of timber access 
roads among all users, and to ensure that rural counties already 
strapped by declines in the timber industry are held harmless.


                             new world mine

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, more than a year ago I addressed this 
body to tell my colleagues about a proposed gold mine that posed a 
major threat to Yellowstone National Park. Crown Butte Mining, Inc. 
proposed to construct a 72-acre impoundment area with a dam that would 
be somewhere between 75 and 100 feet high, which would have a plastic 
lining on the bottom and some sort of a cap on top to keep oxygen away 
from the 5.5 million tons of tailings from the mining operation that 
would go into this impoundment area. The purpose of keeping the oxygen 
away from it is to keep the waste from turning into sulfuric acid. This 
earthfill dam would be located high about Yellowstone National Park and 
the Yellowstone River, in one of the most seismically active, 
earthquake-prone areas of the country. An area where it snows thirty 
feet a year.
  I introduced a bill at the time to withdraw Federal lands from around 
that mine from further disposal under the mining laws, and to draw 
attention to this problem. I said at that time that my bill would not 
legally stop Crown Butte from proceeding with the mine, but that I 
hoped my bill would discourage them and dissuade them from doing it. I 
said that I hoped that Crown Butte, as good corporate citizens, would 
not force the issue and leave us to wonder whether or not this 5.5 
million tons of tailings that they proposed to impound there could 
possibly break loose and pollute the Clarks Fort and Soda Butte Creek, 
which flows right into Yellowstone National Park.
  To their credit, Crown Butte has not proceeded. They recognized that 
the public wanted to protect Yellowstone, and they were going to have 
to overcome some fairly significant environmental problems. And they 
reached an agreement with the administration and with local 
conservation groups that had sued them, and they agreed to let the 
United States buy out their interest. They reached that agreement more 
than a year ago, and the only thing that is required for it to be 
consummated--for Yellowstone to be protected from this threat and for 
the company to receive what they believe is fair compensation--is for 
us to fund that agreement in this bill.
  The Interior Appropriations bill includes $65 million for this 
purpose. So we have the money to accomplish this goal of protecting 
Yellowstone National Park.
  Unfortunately, as the bill currently stands, it requires further 
legislation for the administration to actually use the money for that 
purpose. I hope we dispense with that requirement. The question is 
simple--do we protect Yellowstone National Park through an agreement 
which is supported by both the mining company and the National Park 
Service, and which involves paying the mining company the appraised 
value of its property? Or do we need to kick this around for another 
two years, and reward the mining company for being a responsible 
corporate citizen by saying, ``We've got to think more about this''?

  As the ranking minority Member of the Senate Energy Committee, I am 
very sensitive to that Committee's responsibilities. But it is quite 
clear that no new law is required for this agreement to be consummated. 
It involves purchasing private inholdings in a National Forest--
something the Interior Appropriations Committee has funded in hundreds 
of places over the past several years on the authority of existing law.
  The question is simple. Do we take the opportunity to save 
Yellowstone, or throw it away?
  I went to Yellowstone when I was 12 years old--breathtaking. I never 
forgot any part of it, the geysers, the magnificent waterfalls--all of 
it. Here is the first national park in America. Yellowstone, a crown 
jewel. To allow a huge industrial development generating hundreds of 
tons of highly acidic mine waste to threaten to destroy the first 
national park in America, one of the real crown jewels of the world, 
not just America, is absolutely unacceptable.
  Many times we find that we in this chamber can't agree on some 
proposal to protect environmental values because there is another side, 
and a conflict. Here there is no other side. The mining company wants 
to solve this problem. The conservation community wants to solve this 
problem. I hope that when we take this matter up in conference, we will 
drop this requirement for further legislation and simply solve the 
problem.


         WEATHERIZATION AND STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Gorton for 
increasing funding for the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program 
and the State Energy Conservation Program from the levels provided in 
1997. As a strong supporter of these programs, I am encouraged to see 
the Senate reverse the disheartening trend of the last few years 
whereby the programs had been reduced to 50 percent of the 1995 level.
  These programs are very important in Vermont, where high energy costs 
are a stark reality. Last year, Vermont and the entire Northeast 
experienced a dramatic price spike in heating fuel, twenty-five percent 
higher than the previous winter. These price spikes hurt all 
Vermonters, but low-income families carry a greater burden. Energy 
costs account for fourteen percent of their total income, four-times as 
much as the average household. The Weatherization assistance program 
eases this burden by helping families insulate their homes, replace 
inefficient heaters and ventilation systems and seal drafty windows and 
doors. One thing Vermont has plenty of is drafty, old houses.
  But the Weatherization assistance program is not just about keeping 
homes warm, it is also about keeping homes safe. The program gives 
priority to houses with unsafe chimneys and wiring, cracked heating 
systems, carbon monoxide and combustion air concerns, and faulty 
mechanical systems. In Vermont, this program is saving lives. Let me 
share one example with my colleagues. During a routine energy audit at 
the home of an elderly couple, the weatherization auditor found 
extremely high and dangerous levels of carbon monoxide being emitted 
from the gas cooking range. He discovered that when the power goes out, 
the couple puts a blanket up around the kitchen and uses the cooking 
range for heat. As it turns out, the couple had been suffering from 
carbon monoxide poisoning in the dark every time there was a power 
outage. Through the Weatherization program, the defective valve system 
was replaced to make the home easier to heat and healthier for the 
couple.
  Finally, the Weatherization and State Energy Conservation programs 
make economic sense. The Weatherization program returns $1.80 in energy 
savings for every $1.00 spent on weatherization activities. The average 
savings per home that participates in these programs is $4,000 
annually. Again, these are savings for low-income families who are 
having to make

[[Page S9625]]

the tough choices between heating their homes and feeding their 
children. These programs also benefit our economy as a whole, by 
creating jobs in the energy efficient technology industry and in the 
service sector. In Vermont, for every dollar we spend on energy 
efficiency, over seventy percent remains in our economy.
  I commend Chairman Gorton for his support and look forward to 
supporting the Senate level in conference as the minimum necessary for 
these critical programs. As we attempt to make our nation more energy 
efficient we cannot turn our backs on the programs that actually work 
and deliver real benefits to real people. Whether these programs are 
insulating the homes of the elderly, disabled or poor, or helping to 
reduce energy costs for our hard-pressed schools and hospitals, we need 
to support these effective programs. I hope that we can have a 
successful conference in this area.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague Senator 
Gorton on his amendment to provide kindergarten through 12th grade 
education funding directly to local educational agencies. Last month, I 
traveled through my home State of Missouri to discuss education and the 
importance of parent involvement in their child's education. I strongly 
believe that parents are the key to educational progress. As I visited 
with parents, educators, and local school officials, they were in full 
agreement concerning the education of our children; they need the 
flexibility to improve the quality of education at the local level 
without federal intrusion. As responsible parents and educators, the 
need for our children to be properly educated was a top priority.
  Over the last 30 years, federal involvement in education has 
burgeoned and I am disturbed by the growth of federal involvement in 
what is constitutionally the right of states: to provide for high-
quality, public education. This growth has been a wolf in sheep's 
clothing: states and localities have been offered additional funding in 
exchange for adhering to federal rules and regulations. The result has 
been that local school officials, who are directly accountable to 
parents, have experienced increasingly less control over education.
  The Gorton amendment gives local schools and States what they have 
been requesting for years: the flexibility to develop challenging 
academic standards and programs that works in each locality. States and 
communities are where the action should be in designing standards and 
programs. It is at those levels that disputes are most likely to be 
resolved and important local priorities recognized. We must return to 
the traditional role of education and reduce federal control.
  States and local school districts are making great strides in 
educating our young people; however, the federal government cannot 
continue to impede their ability to provide a high-quality education 
which they are perfectly capable of doing. The Gorton amendment sends 
us in the right direction, allowing both parents and educators to work 
together for quality education. It is bringing education back where it 
belongs: at the local level. We have lost too much already by the 
impositions of the federal government, and it is time to remedy this 
problem to prepare our children for the 21st century.
  This amendment will ease regulations that prevent teachers, school 
administrators, and parents from doing what is best to improve their 
schools. Our goal is to ensure that our children are equipped with 
solid academic basics, which is learning to read, write, compute, 
think, and speak. There is no need to reinvent the wheel because we 
know what works and that is parents, teachers, and local communities 
working together to find local solutions to local problems to educate 
our children. We know that our children could be doing better and I 
want to ensure that local schools have every possible resource to make 
that happen.
  Mr. President, the Gorton amendment will help strengthen our 
educational system by increasing local school district's flexibility 
and funding to improve the quality of education for our children. I am 
proud to support this amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt this 
provision in conference.


                   NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR HUMANITIES

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH). While I am aware of 
the national importance of the NEH, I am particularly supportive of 
continued federal funding for NEH because of the regular and critical 
funding my state of South Dakota receives. Grants from NEH are vital to 
the people of my state in preserving the rich and unique cultural 
heritage of South Dakota and the surrounding great plains states.
  NEH programs exemplify the type of federal-state-local partnerships 
that have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to cultural 
and historic education. The NEH gives state humanities councils the 
necessary freedoms to meet local education needs. In the last five 
years, institutions in South Dakota have received roughly $2.7 million 
from the NEH and the South Dakota Humanities Council for a variety of 
library programs and exhibits, literary publications, and cultural 
heritage visitors centers.
  The South Dakota Humanities Council relies on the NEH for 90 percent 
of its funding. That support goes directly to schools and small 
communities for projects like ``Calamity Jane: The Woman and the 
Legend'' produced by the Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission, and 
``Lakota: Language, History, and Culture'' at the Bonesteel Fairfax 
School. At the same time, broader educational projects continue the 
literary legacy of many of this nation's most acclaimed authors and 
long time South Dakota residents, including Laura Ingalls Wilder, who 
gave us the ``Little House'' series, and L. Frank Baum, author of the 
classic ``The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.'' This year, South Dakota 
celebrated Baum's work with the Wizard of Oz Festival in Baum's 
hometown of Aberdeen. This festival bloomed into a statewide, year-long 
celebration, including reading programs in public schools, travelling 
educational programs, and symposiums involving scholarly 
interpretations of Baum's work at state colleges and universities. This 
far reaching festival celebrating Frank Baum's literature was made 
possible through several NEH grants.
  The many NEH-funded heritage fairs and events held throughout my 
state every year are endorsed by the South Dakota State Arts and 
Humanities Councils, as well as state and local tourism authorities. 
Recently, the South Dakota State Humanities Council received one of 
only two national awards presented at the National Conference of State 
Humanities Councils for the Oscar Michaux Festival'' held in Gregory, 
SD. These and countless other worthy public education programs will 
disappear in my rural State, and the creativity behind this type of 
education programming will be thwarted if efforts to gut or eliminate 
the NEH continue.
  Although the United States provides far less public support for the 
humanities than we spend on military bands, the NEH continues to play a 
critically important role in improving the quality of life in rural 
areas, such as South Dakota. I will continue to support Federal funding 
for the humanities because of the NEH's very positive assistance to 
cultural and historic organizations and schools throughout America.


                   LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from 
Washington in a colloquy on the importance of the Low-Income 
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation 
Program to the people of New York, as well as the entire country.
  Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge the fact that 
Chairman Gorton has crafted a good bill under difficult circumstances. 
This bill combines a number of different agencies and functions within 
a tight budget cap, and I appreciate his effort to balance these 
different needs.
  Mr. President, the Weatherization Program upgrades the energy 
efficiency of the homes of the poor, elderly, and disabled in this 
Nation. This is important in warm and cold climates alike, providing 
people with long-term solutions to housing affordability. This program 
is highly effective with low administrative costs. The State Energy 
Conservation Program permits States to target energy programs in all 
sectors of the economy, from making schools and hospitals more energy 
efficient to promoting alternative motor

[[Page S9626]]

fuels and renewable energy. This program is highly leveraged with large 
amounts of State, local, and private funding. As the country moves 
forward to restructure the electric industry, these two programs will 
be all the more important to meet the needs of low-income families.
  Mr. President, the committee's bill provides $5 million more than the 
House-passed bill for weatherization and $1.1 million more than the 
House for the State Energy Conservation Program. I would like to urge 
Senator Gorton to stand firm in support of the Senate numbers in 
conference with the House.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind remarks of my 
colleague from New York. I would like to assure him that I will seek to 
uphold the Senate position on the weatherization program and the State 
Energy Conservation Program in conference. I appreciate the help and 
interest of the Senator from New York in these two important programs.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think we are ready now for final passage 
on the Interior appropriations bill. I thank all the Senators for their 
cooperation. I'm sorry it took so long to get to this point.
  Senator Daschle and I have been working on a unanimous-consent 
agreement that would allow us to pass this bill and to get an 
understanding of how we will proceed on the FDA reform.


                  Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S. 830

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
filing of the cloture motion on the FDA bill tonight, Senator Kennedy 
be recognized for debate only for up to 1 hour, and the pending Harkin 
amendment be temporarily laid aside until Tuesday, September 23.
  I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, all time 
from adjournment on Thursday and reconvening on Friday count against 
the 30-hour cap postcloture.
  I further ask that the Durbin amendments Nos. 1139 and 1140 be in 
order on Friday and limited to 30 minutes each, equally divided, and 
the votes occur in a stacked sequence at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 
September 23, with 2 minutes for debate between each vote.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 9:30 a.m. and 
10:30 a.m. on Friday be under the control of Senator Kennedy for debate 
only, and when the Senate resumes consideration of FDA on Tuesday, 
September 23, that 5 hours remain postcloture to be equally divided, 
and following the stacked votes, Senator Reed of Rhode Island be 
recognized to offer his amendment No. 1177 and all other provisions of 
rule XXII remain in status quo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Therefore, in light of this agreement, the next vote 
tonight will be the last vote this week. The next votes will occur at 
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 23.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been ordered, The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the 
Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. Wellstone] are absent on official business.
  I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] is absent 
due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Ashcroft
     Faircloth
     Helms

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Harkin
     Moynihan
     Wellstone
  The bill (H.R. 2107), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
bill was passed.
  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 move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and that the President be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer [Mr. Hagel] 
appointed Mr. Gorton, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. Boxer conferees 
on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. GORTON. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, this has been a 
highly complex bill with a large number of amendments, colloquies, 
inquiries, extensive debate and the like, and it almost, but not quite, 
goes without saying that it would have been impossible to reach this 
point without the service of large numbers of dedicated staff, many of 
those for individual Senators with whom my staff and committee staff 
have worked. But I want particularly to thank Ginny James, Anne 
McInerney, Martin Delgado, Hank Kashdan, and Kevin Johnson of the 
majority staff of the Interior subcommittee for countless hours in 
preparing the bill and helping me in debate; Sue Masica, Lisa Mendelson 
and Carole Geagley, of Senator Byrd's staff, for similar and equally 
important work. The two staff directors of the overall Appropriations 
Committee in the minority, Steve Cortese and Jim English; from my own 
personal staff, Chuck Berwick and Nina Nguyen, who also have worked 
countless hours. But most of all, the young man sitting beside me, 
Bruce Evans, who is the new staff director for the Interior 
subcommittee, who has gone through this for the first time with flying 
colors; who seems to be able to write some of my remarks in exactly the 
same way I would phrase them myself and who has been vital to our 
success. I hope this praise spurs them on to ever more successful work 
as we deal with the House, and the many differences between the two 
bills.

  Finally, I want to say, Mr. President, even though he is absent, how 
greatly I appreciated the guidance and support of Senator Byrd, the 
most senior Member of the Democratic Party, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, and of course the ranking member of this 
subcommittee. From the moment I took the chairmanship of the 
subcommittee, he has been helpful and cooperative. He has pointed out 
many pitfalls into which I otherwise would have fallen, and has been a 
true friend and colleague, in a bill I think it is safe to say that is 
highly bipartisan in nature. In spite of the many amendments with great 
contests, most of

[[Page S9627]]

them have involved votes that have crossed party lines. And Senator 
Byrd has been a wonderful ally and friend in that connection.
  With that, I am ready to go to conference on this bill and allow the 
Senate to move onto another subject.

                          ____________________