[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11253-S11257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1998--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
2107, which the clerk will now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2107) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1998, and for other purposes having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by 
     all of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 22, 1997.)
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The time under the 
conference report is controlled.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield myself such time as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
the conference report on H.R. 2107, the fiscal year 1998 Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The conference report provides 
$13.8 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior 
subcommittee, and incorporates a number of changes to House and Senate 
funding levels and legislative provisions in an effort to reconcile the 
differences between the two bodies, and to reconcile the differences 
between the Congress and the administration. I firmly believe the 
resulting conference agreement is worthy of my colleagues' support.
  While at this time I will not go into great detail about the 
conference report, I want to stress the fact that the conferees on this 
bill have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to accommodate the 
concerns of the administration. I ask unanimous consent that a more 
detailed discussion of the modifications that have been made in 
response to administration concerns appear at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GORTON. There are, however, a handful of issues in the conference 
agreement that I know are of great interest to all Senators. I will 
spend a little time discussing two of these issues: Land acquisition 
and the National Endowment for the Arts.
  The budget agreement provided the Appropriations Committees with the 
option to appropriate $700 million for ``priority land acquisitions and 
land exchanges,'' with the appropriation being in addition to the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This reserve fund was requested by 
the administration in budget talks, in large part because of the 
administration's desire to finance two major land purchases that it 
negotiated shortly before the Presidential election: The Headwaters 
Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana.
  The administration originally had proposed to conduct these 
acquisitions administratively, exchanging oil and gas properties and 
revenue streams in ways that stretched existing exchange authorities to 
the limit, if not beyond. I and many others strongly objected to the 
proposed acquisitions at the time, in part because it was clear that 
the administration was trying to evade the requirements of the Budget 
Act and bypass Congress altogether on two major expenditures. In that 
sense, I am glad that the budget agreement provided an opportunity for 
these acquisitions to come before Congress, albeit not under ideal 
conditions.
  The House Appropriations Committee chose not to provide the $700 
million. Chairman Regula not only doubted the value of the Headwaters 
and New World Mine acquisitions to the U.S. taxpayer, but also felt 
strongly that if $700 million were available in the context of the 
budget agreement, that money would be better spent reducing the multi-
billion-dollar maintenance backlog that exists in our parks, refuges, 
and public lands. I cannot honestly say that I disagree with him on 
either point.
  I did, however, include the $700 million in the Senate bill, largely 
because I feel a personal commitment to the budget agreement and the 
broader benefits that it provides for the American taxpayer. $315 
million of the funds provided in the Senate bill were for the 
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. But because of the 
complexity of the acquisitions, the many questions that had been raised 
about them, and their sheer magnitude, I agreed with Senator Murkowski 
that the funds should be provided subject to enactment of subsequent 
authorizing legislation. Some have intimated that this was an attempt 
to kill the two deals, but I can assure you that on my part it was not. 
I also have no doubt that Senator Murkowski was doing anything other 
than his job, part of which is to authorize land purchases of this 
nature. The notion that Congress should simply accept the 
administration's word as to the worth of these expensive and highly 
complex projects is not only an abandonment of congressional 
prerogatives, but of our duty.
  Mr. President, the conference on the Interior bill was closed 3 weeks 
ago but for the very difficult question of land acquisition. The 
administration has continually insisted that the money for Headwaters 
and New World Mine must be included in any Interior bill that the 
President would sign, and that such money could not be subject to an 
authorizing requirement. Senator Murkowski has continued to insist on 
an appropriate role for the authorizing committee. Congressman Young, 
Congressman Hill, Congressman Riggs, and Senator Burns desired to make 
certain that the communities impacted by the two acquisitions were 
adequately compensated. Congressman Regula has insisted that a portion 
of the $700 million be made available to reduce maintenance backlogs on 
our public lands, rather than require all the money to be used to 
increase the public land base, and I should not fail to mention that 
Congressman Obey, among others, was greatly displeased that the budget 
resolution dictated to the penny the amount that the Appropriations 
Committee could provide for priority land acquisitions.
  The negotiations among all of these parties over the past several 
weeks have been exceedingly difficult. The compromise included in the 
conference report provides $699 million for priority land acquisitions 
and land exchanges, and critical maintenance needs. Of this amount, up 
to $250 million is for Headwaters Forest and up to $65 million is for 
the New World Mine. Authorizations for both projects are included in 
the conference report, but the acquisitions cannot be made until 180 
days after enactment, providing the authorizing committees time to 
review the acquisitions and possibly recommend changes to the 
authorizing language. The authorizing language itself is the product of 
lengthy discussions between House and Senate authorizing committees, 
the Appropriations Committees and the administration. I should note

[[Page S11254]]

that Senator Murkowski was a reluctant participant in these 
discussions, and feels strongly that the authorizing legislation should 
have gone through the normal committee process. I will also say that 
the administration is not in complete agreement with the provisions of 
the authorization.

  The major sticking point in these discussions over the last week has 
been the question of whether or not a formal appraisal would be 
required for the Headwaters and New World Mine acquisitions. The 
administration has insisted that appraisals are not necessary, and that 
Congress should be satisfied with an opinion of value--a term with no 
formal meaning. On the other hand, Senator Murkowski, Congressman 
Regula, and I all agree that a formal appraisal is the only way to 
safeguard the American taxpayer. While the conferees have reluctantly 
agreed not to cap the purchase price at the appraised value, the 
conference report does require an appraisal for each acquisition.
  In spite of the great strides that have been taken to address the 
concerns of the administration elsewhere in the bill, I have no doubt 
that if this bill is vetoed by the President, it will primarily be 
because of the appraisal requirement for these two acquisitions. I also 
have little doubt that if the bill is vetoed, the $700 million stands a 
better chance of being removed from a future bill than does the 
appraisal requirement. I cannot entirely account for the 
administration's strong resistance to the notion of a formal appraisal. 
If either appraisal places the value of these properties below the 
price to which the administration agreed, the administration will have 
ample opportunity to dispute the appraisal. Congress does, from time to 
time, approve acquisition above the appraised value. If either 
appraisal values one of these properties above the price to which the 
administration has agreed, such appraisals will only support the 
administration's case that these acquisitions represent good buys for 
the taxpayer. In short, I think Congress has been extraordinarily fair 
in its dealings with the administration with regard to Headwaters and 
New World Mine.
  Turning to the National Endowment for the Arts, my colleagues will 
recall that the House bill included zero funding for the NEA. The 
Senate bill included just over $100 million, a small increase over the 
current year level. The Senate also considered a number of NEA 
amendments during floor consideration, ranging from complete 
termination of the Endowment to greatly increasing the percentage of 
NEA funds that are provided as block grants to the States. Though the 
debate on these amendments made clear that there is significant concern 
about NEA's current structure and practices, the votes on the 
amendments also made clear that the Senate does not share what were 
apparently the views of the House.
  The conference report $98 million for NEA--a remarkable outcome given 
the House position. In exchange for providing nearly all the funding 
included in the Senate bill, the House requested that the conference 
report include a number of reforms to the NEA's structure and 
procedures. As a result, the conference report increases the percentage 
of block grants to States, makes arts education a priority, and alters 
the structure and membership of the National Council for the Arts to 
reflect congressional interest in the NEA's conduct and direction.
  With regard to the conference agreement on the NEA, it is safe to say 
that the House leadership is not pleased with the result. I think it is 
also safe to say that if this bill is vetoed and returned to 
conference, it is almost certain that the House will demand additional 
reductions in funding for the NEA. This is not a threat from an 
opponent of the Endowment. To the contrary, I have been a strong 
supporter of the NEA, even though I have been critical of some of the 
decisions made by the agency over the years. My comments are rather a 
simple recognition of current sentiment in Congress.
  In a similar vein, I cannot say what would happen to the $700 million 
for land acquisition should this bill be vetoed. This comes not from 
someone who strictly opposes providing the $700 million, but rather 
from someone who included the money in this bill in the first place. I 
am simply stating the fact that this conference agreement is very 
delicately balanced, and that a decision by the administration to come 
back for one more bite at the apple--despite the great lengths we have 
gone to accommodate its concerns--will not be without peril.
  On a less ominous note, I do want to take a brief moment to mention a 
few other items. First, I want to note the work that Senator Jeffords 
and Senator Torricelli have done in the interests of the preservation 
of Civil War battlefields--a subject near and dear to my heart. The 
Senators offered an amendment to this bill expressing the sense of the 
Senate that Civil War battlefield preservation should be a high 
priority for Congress. I know they would like to have done more, 
particularly with regard to earmarking a portion of the $700 million, 
but I do want them to know that I will continue to work with them in 
the allocation of the $700 million should this conference report be 
enacted. I also want to note some of the Civil War projects that are 
funded elsewhere in this bill, such as the $1.7 million provided for 
rehabilitation at Vicksburg National Military Park, the $2 million 
provided for stabilization work at Shiloh National Military Park, the 
$1 million provided for an interpretive center at Corinth battlefield, 
and the $3.5 million provided for land acquisition at Fredricksburg/
Spotsylvania National Military Park. I am also very pleased that the 
conference report provides a more than $1 million operating increase 
for Gettysburg National Military Park, a subject on which Senator 
Santorum has worked very diligently.
  I also want to clarify that the funding provided to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service for habitat conservation planning for the Preble's 
Meadow jumping mouse applies to four counties in Colorado. These mice 
range over four counties in Colorado and two counties in Wyoming. 
However, the mice occur on private lands in Colorado and on Federal 
land in Wyoming. The habitat conservation plan only applies to the 
private lands in Colorado.
  Finally, I want to make special note that this bill includes funding 
for the National Park Service to study alternatives for the 
commemoration and interpretation of events associated with the 
integration of the Charleston School District in Arkansas and Central 
High School in Little Rock. While other Senators are familiar with the 
events surrounding the integration of Central High School in 1957, they 
may not be aware that the Charleston public schools were actually the 
first to integrate in Arkansas--by some accounts the first in the 
South--shortly after the Brown versus Board of Education decision in 
1954. My colleagues may also not be aware that Senator Bumpers is a 
former member of the Charleston School Board, and that he was counsel 
to the school board during the period in which the decision was made to 
integrate the Charleston schools. Perhaps the relatively smooth 
integration of the Charleston schools, as compared to the bitter 
struggle that took place at Central High School, is a most telling 
testament to Senator Bumpers' wisdom and power of persuasion--qualities 
that we will sorely miss after his departure from the Senate.
  With that I will once again express my thanks to Senator Byrd for all 
his help and guidance over the course of the year, and express my 
sincere hope that the President will sign this bill. I cannot stress 
too greatly the length to which we have gone to address the 
administration's concerns, nor can I overstate the delicacy of the 
balance that has been achieved in this conference report. Nothing good 
can come of the President vetoing this bill.

                              [Exhibit 1]

             Efforts To Accommodate Administration Concerns


                             forest service

                    Forest land management planning

       The Senate bill included a provision prohibiting the 
     expenditure of funds for revisions of individual forest plans 
     until new forest planning regulations have been issued. Those 
     regulations have been under review for eight years through 
     two administrations, and have been withdrawn at the last 
     minute prior to each of the last two presidential elections. 
     Such delay is intolerable. The Appropriations Committee is 
     greatly concerned that millions of dollars are being spent 
     for forest plan revisions that will be invalid or obsolete 
     upon issuance of the new regulations. The Committee is also 
     concerned that the Forest Service may be revising plans

[[Page S11255]]

     pursuant to a set of regulations that have been drafted, but 
     not aired in the public rulemaking process.
       The conference language has been significantly revised to 
     accommodate Administration concerns, while making clear that 
     the current forest planning process is broken and needs 
     prompt revision. The conference language allows funds to be 
     expended for forest plan revisions under current regulations 
     where a Notice of Intent to Revise was published in the 
     Federal Register prior to October 1, 1997, or where a court 
     order directs that a revision must occur. The statement of 
     managers further clarifies that the new regulations need only 
     be released in an interim form to comply fully with this 
     provision.

                     Office of the Western Director

       The House bill eliminated all funding for operations of the 
     western director and special assistant to the Office of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture. The Senate bill prohibited funding 
     for this purpose absent approval through the reprogramming 
     process. Despite House and Senate concerns about the use of 
     funds for this purpose, the conference agreement allows 
     Interior bill funds to be used for the western director up to 
     the level provided in the Interior bill for fiscal year 1997.

                              Log exports

       This important legislation bans the export of raw logs from 
     national forest lands and from Washington State lands. It 
     further alters rules governing substitution of private logs 
     in the export market for federal timber. This legislation has 
     bipartisan support and is the result of lengthy discussion 
     among affected industries and parties in the affected states. 
     This language encourages domestic processing of timber, 
     creates more American jobs, and entirely bans the export of 
     raw logs from State of Washington timber lands.

                              Forest roads

       The Administration has objected to the fact that the 
     conference agreement does not provide for the termination of 
     the ``purchaser credit'' program for the construction of 
     timber roads. The issue was hotly debated in both the House 
     and Senate, but neither body voted to terminate the program. 
     As such, the conference agreement is appropriate.
       While I firmly believe that the real issue in this debate 
     is the continued effort by fringe environmentalists to 
     eliminate the harvest of timber from National Forests, I 
     believe it would be wise for Congress and the Administration 
     to resolve this issue somewhere other than on the floors of 
     the Senate and House. I encourage the Administration to 
     negotiate with the timber industry, environmentalists, and 
     timber workers to develop reforms that will build confidence 
     in the purchaser credit program, and provide assurances to 
     taxpayers that the program is an efficient alternative to 
     Forest Service road construction, and is not an industry 
     subsidy.

                           Western red cedar

       The conference report contains language that protects the 
     economic stability of timber processors in the Pacific 
     Northwest by requiring the Forest Service to make Alaskan 
     Western Red Cedar available to processors in the contiguous 
     United States before it can be exported. Although the bill 
     language does not fully satisfy the Administration, it does 
     have strong bipartisan support in the Pacific Northwest where 
     timber producers have been severely harmed by reduced 
     availability of public timber, and fully complies with 
     Alaska's Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan.

          Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project

       The conference agreement includes language on the Columbia 
     Basin ecosystem planning project in response to Congressional 
     concerns about the time, cost, and lack of results associated 
     with this and previous ecosystem planning efforts. The 
     language instructs the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
     Management to include in the Environmental Impact Statement 
     (EIS) information on economic and social impacts at the sub-
     basin level. The conferees are aware that this may result in 
     additional time and cost, but are willing to make this 
     investment so that the people most affected by these 
     decisions will have a better understanding of the impacts 
     when the final EIS is implemented.
       The conference agreement also requires a report to Congress 
     on potential implementation costs and potential impacts on 
     resource and commodity production in the Interior Columbia 
     Basin. To date this project has cost taxpayers $90 million. 
     The Administration has estimated that implementation of the 
     plan could cost an additional $135 million per year. It is 
     certainly legitimate for Congress to seek more information 
     about such costs and impacts prior to finalization of the 
     plan. The language gives the Administration flexibility to 
     perform its analysis in an efficient manner.

                   President's northwest forest plan

       The Administration has complained about language included 
     in the Statement of Managers requiring that 757 million board 
     feet be offered for sale under the Pacific Northwest Forest 
     Plan, of which ten percent must meet the Administration's 
     definition of ``other wood.'' This language uses the 
     Administration's own figures, and is simply included to 
     provide some level of accountability to ensure that the 
     Forest Service lives up to its commitments.


                           natural resources

                 Lake Clark national park and preserve

       The Senate bill included a provision extending the statute 
     of limitations of certain Alaska Native Village Corporations 
     and the area Regional Corporation to bring suit against the 
     Department of the Interior with regard to certain land claims 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This provision 
     was acceptable to the Administration. A second provision 
     added in conference would have required future litigation on 
     this issue to be considered in trial de novo, and would have 
     required that certain elements of such litigation be 
     construed to the benefit of the Native Corporations. Sen. 
     Stevens strongly believed this amendment to be appropriate 
     from the standpoint of fairness to the Native Corporations, 
     but the Administration also felt strongly that the additional 
     provisions were contrary to the agreements that the 
     Department of the Interior had reached with the Native 
     Corporations regarding land selections.
       The conference report includes the Senate provision 
     extending the statute of limitations, as well as language 
     allowing additional evidence to be introduced in any 
     litigation that may ensue. The language included in the 
     conference report has been agreed to by the Administration.

                     Rulemaking on hardrock mining

       The Administration objected to the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee's provisions in section 339 which would have 
     prohibited Department of the Interior's use of funds for a 
     rulemaking to update rules on surface management of hardrock 
     mines until the Secretary of the Interior established a 
     Federal-State advisory committee that would have prepared a 
     consensus report for Congress on the relationship of State 
     and Federal surface management policies. In response, section 
     339 has been amended to permit the Interior Department to 
     develop a rulemaking on hardrock mining upon the 
     certification by the Secretary of the Committees of 
     jurisdiction in the House and Senate that the Department has 
     consulted with the governor of each state that contains 
     public lands open to location under the General Mining Laws. 
     The publication of proposed regulations shall not occur 
     before November 15, 1998 and regulations shall not be 
     finalized prior to 90 days after publication of the proposed 
     regulations.

                             Grizzly bears

       The conference agreement does include a limitation on funds 
     for the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the Selway-
     Bitteroot area of Idaho and Montana. This provision was 
     adopted by unanimous voice vote during Senate committee 
     markup and was not contested on the Senate floor. At the 
     request of the Administration, however, the language has been 
     changed to make clear that the Environmental Impact Statement 
     on reintroduction can proceed to a Record of Decision. Since 
     the Administration has stated that actual reintroduction is 
     unlikely to take place in fiscal year 1998, it is unclear 
     what substantive objection remains.

                           Alaska subsistence

       The Administration strongly objected to a provision in the 
     House bill that would have extended a moratorium on the 
     assumption of Federal control over fisheries management in 
     Alaska pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act. The conference agreement incorporates a 
     compromise between Members of the Alaska delegation, the 
     Administration, the State of Alaska and other elected 
     officials in Alaska that will facilitate resolution of the 
     subsistence issue. This provision is directly relevant to the 
     appropriations process, as the cost to the Federal government 
     of assuming management responsibilities would be substantial.

            World heritage and man in the biosphere programs

       The House voted to prohibit the use of funds for the World 
     Heritage and Man in the Biosphere programs, a provision to 
     which the Administration has strongly objected. The 
     conference agreement does not prohibit the use of funds for 
     the World Heritage program, which has grounding in prior 
     statute and treaty, but does prohibit the use of funds to 
     nominate sites under the Man in the Biosphere program until 
     that program is specifically authorized by Congress. 
     Authorizing legislation addressing these issues is under 
     active consideration by Congress, and it is reasonable for 
     the Appropriations Committee to prohibit the use of funds for 
     the Man in the Biosphere program until U.S. participation in 
     the program is authorized.

                      Pennsylvania avenue redesign

       The conference agreement prohibits the Administration from 
     expending Interior bill funds for redesign of Pennsylvania 
     Avenue between 15th and 17th Streets, N.W., without the 
     approval of the Appropriations Committees through the 
     reprogramming process. The Administration objected to the 
     original version of this provision on the grounds that it 
     might have prevented the implementation of security measures 
     to protect the White House. While such was not the intent or 
     effect of the amendment as originally proposed, the amendment 
     has been modified at the request of the White House.
       The Treasury Department has received over $51 million in 
     direct appropriations since 1996 specifically for security 
     around the White House. The provision in the Interior bill is 
     directed at funds that would be spent by the Park Service, 
     primarily for beautification of the area. The Administration 
     has chosen an option for the redesign that would cost over 
     $50 million. The details of this plan

[[Page S11256]]

     were only recently released, and have received very little 
     scrutiny. The Appropriations Committee simply wants the 
     opportunity to discuss with the Administration its proposal 
     before a significant amount of Park Service funds is 
     committed to a particular plan of action.


                             arts programs

                        Smithsonian Institution

       The Administration objection to the fact that the House 
     bill provided no funds for construction of the National 
     Museum of the American Indian Mall Museum. The conference 
     agreement provides $29 million for the first half of 
     construction costs as proposed in the Senate-passed bill and 
     in the Administration's budget request.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

       The conferees agreed to fund the Woodrow Wilson 
     International Center for Scholars (WWIC) at the budget 
     request level of $5.8 million, as proposed in the Senate 
     bill. Due to concern about administration of the Center's 
     programs, the House recommended a $1 million appropriation 
     for FY 1998--an amount that would have terminated the 
     Center's operations.

                    National Endowment for the Arts

       The House bill included no funding for the National 
     Endowment for the Arts. The Senate bill included $100 
     million, a decrease below the request but a slight increase 
     over FY 1997. There was considerable debate about the NEA 
     during conference, but the final result was a compromise that 
     substantially protects the Endowment's current funding level. 
     Certain reforms to the NEA's structure and grant-making 
     processes were adopted, but provisions to expand radically 
     the black grant program or impose an administrative budget 
     cap--two items of particular concern to the Administration--
     were not among the reforms adopted. The conferees also 
     rejected an effort to reduce the appropriation by $10 million 
     below the Senate level.


                     programs for native americans

                      Tribal priority allocations

       The conference agreement provides funding for BIA Tribal 
     Priority Allocations (TPA) at the Administration's requested 
     level, the level included in the Budget Agreement. Within 
     that amount, the conference agreement requires that all 
     federally-recognized tribes be provided at least the minimum 
     level of TPA recommended by the BIA, a goal supported by the 
     BIA and Interior Department but missing from the President's 
     request.
       The TPA language included in section 118 of the conference 
     report represents a serious attempt to respond to the 
     Administration's concerns about the original Senate language, 
     while still addressing the fact that discretionary 
     appropriations are limited, and that the TPA pro rata 
     allocation is inequitable and unresponsive to the disparate 
     needs of the tribes. Currently, 309 of 526 Federally-
     recognized tribes do not receive the minimum recommended 
     level of TPA. The Administration has not requested measures 
     to rectify the inequitable distribution of TPA among the 
     tribes. The Senate proposed a new distribution method based 
     on a number of factors to measure the relative means of 
     tribes. Despite universal agreement that the current 
     distribution method of TPA is archaic and has resulted in 
     great financial disparity among the tribes, the 
     Administration opposed the Senate's proposal.
       The Conference report provides full funding for TPA at the 
     requested level to be distributed as follows: All pro rata 
     TPA programs will be funded at the fiscal year 1997 level 
     adjusted for all fixed costs and internal funding transfers; 
     all formula-funded TPA programs will be funded at the 
     requested level; all Federally-recognized tribes will receive 
     at least at the minimum level of $160,000 in TPA funds as 
     recommended by the BIA; and any remaining funds will be 
     distributed based on recommendations of a task force, which 
     shall include tribal leaders, to be established by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.

                      Taxation of tribal revenues

       Contrary to Administration complaints that the Congress 
     would add such a provision to the bill, the conference report 
     contains no provision that would prohibit the Secretary of 
     the Interior from taking land into trust for any tribe that 
     had not entered into a binding agreement with State and local 
     governments regarding the tribe's collection and payment of 
     State and local sales and excise taxes on retail purchases 
     made on the land by non-tribal members.

                           Sovereign immunity

       The Senate bill originally contained a provision that would 
     waive the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes accepting 
     certain Federal funds. The Administration strongly objected 
     to this provision, which was removed during Senate floor 
     consideration in response to commitments from the Chairman of 
     the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on 
     the issue and to mark up a bill from the Committee during the 
     next session of Congress.

                             Indian gaming

       The Conference Report contains the Senate-passed provisions 
     at section 129 concerning approval of Tribal-State compacts 
     for Indian gaming. The Administration opposed this language 
     in a September 30, 1997 letter to Congress. The 
     Administration is reminded, however, that the amendment was 
     modified by its sponsors in response to concerns that the 
     original version would have resulted in Federal law 
     preempting State law. The Conferees are concerned that the 
     States affected by Indian gaming within their borders are 
     kept out of the decision-making process with regard to Indian 
     gaming. Section 129 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior 
     from unilaterally approving any initial Tribal-State compacts 
     for class III gaming entered into on or after the date of 
     enactment of the Interior Appropriations Act. Section 129 
     does not affect Secretarial review or approval of a renewal 
     or revision of, or amendment to, existing tribal-State 
     compacts.
       The Conferees modified section 131 as passed by the Senate, 
     which the Administration opposed. As passed by the Senate, 
     section 131 would have prevented the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission (NIGC) from taking action to change its current 
     regulations to define certain types of new electronic 
     gambling. As modified, the provision prohibits the NIGC from 
     issuing draft or final rules, but clarifies that the 
     Commission may gather information during fiscal year 1998 
     relating to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
     such regulations it recently published. Given the time 
     required to proceed with information-gathering relative to 
     the Advanced Notice, the year prohibition will not be an 
     undue interference with the Commission in exercising its 
     regulatory and oversight duties on tribal gaming activities.
       The National Governors Association supports both section 
     129 and section 131.


                          department of energy

                          Energy conservation

       The conference agreement provides $612 million for Energy 
     Conservation programs, an amount which is roughly a split 
     between the comparable levels provided by the House and 
     Senate. While the amount provided by the conference agreement 
     is below the budget request, it is $42 million above the FY 
     1997 level--a substantial increase.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Gorton today in bringing 
the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations 
bill before the Senate. The Senate completed its action on this bill in 
September. The formal conference was completed on September 30, and 
discussion and negotiation regarding a limited number of outstanding 
items was finally completed just a few days ago. The conference report 
was filed on October 22, and was approved by the House last Friday by a 
vote of 233-171. Inasmuch as we are now several weeks into the fiscal 
year, I hope that the Senate will be able to complete its consideration 
of this appropriations measure expeditiously, so that the bill can be 
presented to the President and the agencies can begin implementation of 
the programs funded for fiscal year 1998 once this bill is enacted.
  The agreements before the Senate today total $13.8 billion in budget 
authority, and $13.7 billion in outlays, as scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office. This conference agreement substantially fulfills the 
commitments for Interior bill programs included in the bipartisan 
budget agreement of which I had no part and which personally I don't 
recognize, and incorporated into the budget resolution earlier this 
year.
  Mr. President, as with nearly every conference, reaching agreement on 
this conference report required difficult choices and a search for 
balance between competing priorities of the House, the Senate, and the 
administration. This bill provides important resources to address 
important needs for our public lands and natural resources, as well as 
for Indian programs, energy research and development, and our core 
cultural programs. The major legislative provisions of concern have 
been modified to address some of the concerns of the administration.
  Mr. President, Senator Gorton has done an excellent job of 
summarizing the many factors at work in reaching the agreements 
contained in the conference report now before the Senate. The 
negotiations over the special $700 million land acquisition account 
were protracted, with each side giving some in order to reach a final 
agreement. We do not yet know whether the President will approve or 
veto this legislation. As Senator Gorton has suggested, many changes 
were made to this bill to reflect the concerns of the administration, 
while protecting Congress' role--while protecting Congress' role in 
determining the expenditure of funds and proper oversight 
responsibilities. Just as no Member of Congress got everything he or 
she might have wanted

[[Page S11257]]

from this appropriations measure, neither did the administration. But 
the overall product is a good one, and I hope it will be enacted. I do 
not believe that closure on further issues of concern will be easier if 
the bill is vetoed.
  Among the highlights of this conference report are these:
  Funding for the National Park Service remains a priority. The 
recommendation includes an operational increase of $79 million over the 
fiscal year 1997 level. Other significant park increases are provided 
for construction and land acquisition.
  A significant initiative to focus attention on the operational 
requirements and habitat restoration and maintenance backlogs of our 
national wildlife refuges is supported, with increased funding of $40.8 
million above fiscal year 1997.
  As to our Nation's energy research and development programs, the 
investment in those programs is continued. Fossil energy research and 
development is funded at $362.4 million, which is $2.3 million below 
the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. Increases above the budget request 
are provided to sustain technology development programs intended to 
produce environmental benefits while improving energy efficiency.
  On another matter, the conference agreement fully funds the 
President's request for tribal priority allocations at $757.4 million, 
an increase of $76.5 million over fiscal year 1997 levels.
  As to the National Endowment for the Arts, the conference agreement 
includes $98 million to continue the National Endowment for the Arts. A 
package of reforms is included in the bill to address concerns over the 
use of Federal funds in support of the arts. These reforms include an 
increase on the amount of funds allocated directly to the States; a cap 
on the amount of funds that can be awarded to each State from the 
competitive grants pool; changes in the structure and composition of 
the National Council on the Arts; prohibitions regarding grants to 
individuals; and an emphasis on arts education.
  With reference to land acquisition, this bill provides a special land 
acquisition account as recommended in the budget resolution. The 
account is funded at a level of $699 million, which includes $315 
million for the Headwaters Forest, CA, and New World Mine, MT; $22 
million in special payments for affected local areas in California and 
Montana; and the balance is available for priority land acquisitions, 
exchanges, and maintenance to be identified by the Department of the 
Interior and the Forest Service, and for which the committees on 
appropriations will have final approval. The conference agreement 
includes legislative language establishing initial parameters for the 
completion of the two large exchanges.
  Mr. President, it is my privilege and great pleasure to serve as the 
ranking member at the side of our very able chairman, the senior 
Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton. We have worked closely, as we 
always have, on the product that we present to the Senate today. In his 
stewardship of this bill as chairman of the committee, Senator Gorton 
has been very fair, he has been bipartisan in his handling of the many 
programs and issues which were negotiated in the conference. I commend 
this conference report to the Senate and urge Senators to support its 
approval.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 
I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for how long does the distinguished Senator 
wish to speak? I have no objection. I just think we should know how 
long he expects to speak.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for 20 minutes to speak.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia.

                          ____________________