[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.
____________________