[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11258-S11275]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I inquire whether or not there is a 
time allocation under the standing orders of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has been allocated 15 minutes.

[[Page S11259]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over 
many of the agencies funded by this appropriations bill, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I rise to express several concerns about 
the Interior appropriations conference report that is before us today.
  Included in the conference report are numerous provisions that are 
important to my State of Alaska; none more critical than language 
extending a moratorium preventing a Federal takeover of the management 
of Alaska's fisheries until December 1, 1998.
  Mr. President, last year, the Alaska congressional delegation was 
successful in temporarily preventing the Federal Government from taking 
over the management of our fisheries. That moratorium is about to 
expire.
  If this conference report is not adopted, the Federal takeover is 
inevitable, forcing the citizens of my State of Alaska to live with 
fisheries management not seen since territorial days. This is what 
statehood was all about, Mr. President, giving the people of Alaska the 
authority to manage our fish and game. We have just about come full 
circle.
  I cannot in good conscience turn the clock back on all of the 
advances that we have made in 38 years since statehood. It is for that 
reason primarily that I am inclined to vote for this conference report.
  However, Mr. President, I want to express my objection to several 
areas, specifically in the process that has led to the inclusion of 
amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 
ANILCA, as a part of the extension of the moratorium, as a 
consideration for the moratorium,
  Mr. President, several months ago the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. 
Bruce Babbitt, informed the Alaska delegation that he would recommend a 
Presidential veto of another moratorium extending the prohibition of 
the Department of the Interior to take over the management of fish and 
game.
  The Secretary has now withdrawn the veto threat, but only under the 
condition that a provision which effectively amends ANILCA title VIII 
be included in this conference report. The provision also requires that 
the Alaska Legislature act and the people of Alaska approve the changes 
in a referendum before the amendments to ANILCA are effective. These 
amendments were worked out by Alaska's Governor, the Secretary of the 
Interior, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I was not a 
party to these negotiations, and I believe that there were other 
options that should have been explored.
  Nevertheless, Mr. President, rather than a congressional moratorium, 
my hope specifically would have been for the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Governor to have worked together so that the Secretary could 
have applied to the court for an extension of time to avoid a Federal 
takeover, based specifically on progress that was being made. And, 
indeed, Mr. President, there was a good deal of progress.
  A task force was established by the Governor. That task force met 
several times and made its final recommendations. The Alaska Federation 
of Natives held a number of meetings and came up with its seven-point 
proposals. The State house resources committee held statewide hearings. 
And the State senate held hearings in September. So there was a good 
deal of evidence that progress was being made.
  Perhaps this would have led to a special session and a resolve by the 
legislature, along with the input from the AFN, to give all Alaskans an 
opportunity to vote on the issue next year.
  Unfortunately, there was no input by the legislature, the elected 
representatives of the people. My fear is now that some in our State, 
some Alaskans, will have the unreasonable expectation that future 
moratoriums can simply be obtained by the delegation--we have done it 
before--and the State legislature would therefore have an excuse not to 
finally resolve the issue.
  The legislature will have a chance to receive input and provide 
recommendations on the proposed amendments to title VIII of ANILCA.
  I tell the people of Alaska that it will be highly unlikely that we 
are going to see another moratorium legislated by Congress. The 
extension of the moratorium will provide the State legislature with an 
additional 14 months to work toward a resolve on the subsistence issue. 
As I indicated, the legislature will have the chance to receive input 
and provide recommendations to the proposed amendments of title XIII of 
ANILCA.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, my intention, after the State legislature acts, is to 
conduct hearings here in Washington to cover the context of the 
language in the Interior appropriations bill and to receive input from 
the legislature and the State of Alaska, native groups, sportsmen's 
groups, and other interested parties on any further amendments to 
ANILCA title VIII that might be appropriate.
  Mr. President, avoiding a Federal takeover of fish and game 
management is simply critical in my State. When Alaska became a State, 
Alaskans were united in our desire to take over the management of our 
fish and game. Many Alaskans still have vivid memories of the disaster 
of Federal control. Alaska salmon runs plummeted to 25 million fish 
with Federal bureaucrats in control in Washington, DC. Under State 
management, our runs are increasing and have approached 200 million in 
the last few years.
  Alaskans must act now by participating in a process and agreeing to a 
solution to prevent a Federal takeover of our fisheries and gaining 
back control of our game management. The State, not the elusive Federal 
bureaucrats with no accountability to Alaskans, should manage our fish 
and game. They are responsible to the people of Alaska. And they are 
certainly accountable in Alaska as to managing the fish and game.
  A subsistence solution I think must follow four basic principles that 
must be laid down as objectives.
  First must be the protection of our resource. It must return and keep 
management of fish and game to the State of Alaska.
  It must provide all the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, and it 
must be fair to all Alaskans.
  This issue must be resolved while both Congressman Don Young and I 
retain our respective chairmanships of the committees of jurisdiction 
on this issue. Some have suggested we simply repeal the Federal 
subsistence law. But the Clinton administration, of course, would 
oppose this and would undoubtedly veto the bill. Even if we did, the 
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, would still have the 
authority to enforce a Native-only subsistence priority based on his 
trust responsibilities to Alaska Natives established by Indian law.
  As I indicated earlier, we have made more progress in the past year 
on resolving the subsistence issue than any time in the past. We have 
involved the Governor, the Natives, and the legislature in moving 
forward on this issue. These constructive actions are why I support the 
moratorium contained in the conference report but object to the process 
or lack thereof by which the ANILCA amendments were included without 
the input of the representatives of Alaska; namely, the State 
legislature.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, let me commend and support the 
ongoing process in the State to come to a general consensus and put a 
solution on the ballot in November 1998 so that Alaskans have the 
ability to vote on a final solution. This is an Alaskan issue, Mr. 
President. It mandates an Alaskan solution. As chairman of the Senate 
Energy Committee, I stand ready to work on amendments to Federal 
subsistence in concert with Alaska.


                         Ketchikan Health Care

  Another item of note, Mr. President. I want to express my 
disappointment that the conference report does not contain a provision 
that prevents the Indian Health Service, IHS, from entering into two 
contracts for Native health care clinics in the community of Ketchikan, 
AK. This was a provision that passed the Senate and would have 
prevented the Indian Health Service from entering into those two 
contracts. Mr. President, this is simply a waste of taxpayers' money.
  Unfortunately, the Indian Health Service declined to exercise their 
administrative discretion. Although I personally made contacts with the 
administrator, they refused to exercise their administrative discretion 
to contract with only a single facility. Had

[[Page S11260]]

IHS done so, it would have avoided paying $500,000 a year in additional 
and unnecessary administrative costs that will be borne by the America 
taxpayer at the expense of health care, in my opinion, for Alaska 
Natives. As we increase our administrative funds that leaves less for 
care.
  Instead, Mr. President, the Indian Health Service ducked the cost 
issue, hiding behind the policy of the Indian Self-Determination Act. 
They are choosing to satisfy two Native entities rather than looking at 
ways to deliver the most efficient and the best health care for the 
money. It seems incredible that at a time when we have been slowing 
spending and other Federal health programs, Indian Health Service would 
choose to waste money on administrative overhead instead of making the 
tough health care decisions as to who is best qualified.
  The final conference report allows for the possibility of two Native 
health clinics to be operated within a couple of miles of each other in 
Ketchikan, AK. I still fail to see the logic of the decision by IHS to 
authorize both clinics in a small community, and I intend to pursue 
this matter again with IHS.


                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

  Further, Mr. President, another area I want to address, is my dismay 
at the recent practice of using the strategic petroleum reserve, or 
SPR, as a piggy bank. The trend continues in this year's Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Last year we sold oil in the SPR that cost $33 a barrel for $18 to 
$20 a barrel. As a result, we lost the taxpayers almost half a billion 
dollars. But it doesn't look like we have learned our lesson.

  The fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill sells another 207.5 
million dollars worth of SPR oil, a sale that will cost the taxpayers 
an additional $170 million.
  Buying high and selling low never makes sense. I wonder if we are 
like the man in the old joke who is buying high and selling low, 
claiming ``he would make it up on volume.'' This is a complete waste of 
taxpayers' money, and it must be stopped.


                priority land acquisitions and exchanges

  Finally, Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I have taken an active interest in how the 
additional $700 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
appropriated for priority lands acquisitions and exchanges. I have 
strongly advocated appropriating moneys from the fund in a manner 
consistent with the terms and the spirit of the Land and Water 
Conservation Act.
  I want to express my disappointment with how this money was 
ultimately appropriated. However, I do want to commend my good friend, 
Senator Gorton, and his extraordinary staff for a job well done and to 
thank him for the efforts that he took to accommodate my concerns with 
these provisions.
  Title V of H.R. 2107, as it emerged from conference, differs 
dramatically from the bill which was passed by both the Senate 
Appropriations Committee and the full Senate last month.
  First, the $100 million that the Senate appropriated for the 
stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund matching grant program has 
been eliminated. This is unfortunate. This program provides vitally 
needed matching funds for State and local parks and recreation 
projects. Unfortunately, for the fourth year in a row, no moneys are 
provided for this program, which is universally supported by mayors, 
Governors, environmental groups, and many others who care about park 
and recreation issues.
  Second, title V appropriates Land and Water Conservation moneys to 
the Federal land management agencies for uses not otherwise authorized 
by the Land and Water Conservation Act: namely, critical maintenance 
activities and mitigation payments associated with the Headwaters 
Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. While I do not disagree that 
the money needs to be appropriated for these purposes, I believe this 
sets a very dangerous precedent for use of the Land and Water 
Conservation moneys.
  Finally, and most significantly, I object to the decision to 
authorize the Headwaters Forest of New World Mine acquisitions on the 
appropriations bill. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in the 
authorizing committee. This decision is clearly within the purview of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and not the Appropriations 
Committee. If appropriators are allowed to circumvent the authorizers 
as blatantly as they have tried, then what role are authorizers, all 
authorizing committees, to play in future Congresses?
  Nonetheless, I again commend Senator Gorton and Senator Stevens, 
along with the majority leader, for ensuring that the members in my 
committee are provided a meaningful opportunity to review the 
authorizations contained within the bill. I intend to hold them to 
their commitment to provide the supplemental appropriations bill as a 
vehicle for any amendments to this authorization reported by the 
committee.
  I also appreciate the fact that the authorization requires the 
administration to perform appraisals on these acquisitions and provides 
time for Congress to review the appraisals before the funds 
appropriated for the acquisitions are released. The American taxpayers 
are entitled to know whether or not the Headwaters Forest and the New 
World Mine purchases are the great deals that the Clinton 
administration claims.
  Mr. President, this is a flawed conference report. But I cannot turn 
my back on the people of Alaska and vote against it because there are 
many provisions that benefit the people of my State. Most importantly, 
this conference report prevents a Federal takeover of fish and game 
management and I will therefore vote for the conference report.


                     alaska-specific appropriations

  Mr. President, although the extension of the moratorium contained in 
this conference agreement is critical to every Alaskan, there are 
several other provisions that should not go unnoticed.
  NPR-A: The conference agreement contains language amending the lease 
terms in the National Petroleum Reserve which allows leases to be 
offered for an initial period of not less than 10 years. In addition, 
this provision allows for an extension of the lease for as long as the 
oil and gas is produced in paying quantities.
  Additionally, the change will allow lease holders to unitize, 
providing for more efficient development of the NPR-A area if, in fact 
lease sales are offered next years.
  PILT: The funding level for the payment in lieu of tax [PILT] program 
has been raised from $113.5 to $120 million. This is especially 
important for Alaska communities especially since Congress last year 
provided that communities within unorganized boroughs are eligible for 
PILT payments.
  RS2477: The conference report also makes clear that previous 
appropriations language preventing final rules or regulations from 
taking effect regarding the validity or recognition of RS2477 claims 
is, in fact permanent law.
  Glacier Bay: The conference report also ensures safer access to 
Glacier Bay National Park for those people who use the ferry from 
Juneau, including the handicapped and elderly.
  Stampede Mine: Mr. President, I must commend the appropriators for 
also including a provision that allows, after 10 years, that the 
University of Alaska will finally get just compensation for mining 
properties that the Park Service destroyed.
  Spruce bark beetle: Also included in this conference agreement is an 
appropriation of $500,000 to the U.S. Forest Service to work with the 
stakeholders in Alaska to develop an action plan to manage the spruce 
bark beetle infestation in south-central Alaska, and to rehabilitate 
the infested areas.
  Appendix C: The conferees have also provided a 1-year extension for 
five small villages in the Lake Clark area of Alaska to file a lawsuit 
regarding lands these villages were promised more than 20 years ago 
under ANSCA.
  Kantishna: Language is also included in the conference report that 
provides both claim owners in the park and the National Park Service 
with an expedited mechanism to resolve these claims. Consenting owners 
will be allowed to obtain compensation 90 days after enactment of this 
act. However, taking matters will be left to the parties or the court 
system to resolve.
  Red cedar: I am also pleased that in working with Senator Patty 
Murray, we were able to foster greater utilization of Alaska red cedar 
and achieve

[[Page S11261]]

greater efficiency in Tongass timbers sales in general.
  Forest Service: This conference report also provides direction to the 
U.S. Forest Service that it not waste any money on expensive forest 
planning revisions until new regulations concerning forest planning are 
issued.


           Title V--Priority Land Acquisitions and Exchanges

  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I rise 
today to speak about title V of H.R. 2107. Throughout the 
appropriations process, I have taken an active interest in the 
additional $700 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
[LWCF] for priority land acquisitions and exchanges. While I am 
disappointed with how this money was ultimately appropriated, I want to 
commend Senator Gorton and his staff for a job well done and thank him 
for the efforts he took to accommodate my concerns with these 
provisions.
  Since last spring, I have strongly advocated appropriating moneys 
from the LWCF in a manner consistent with the terms, and spirit, of the 
LWCF Act. The LWCF provides funds for two purposes: 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 governments for the acquisition of public outdoor recreation 
areas and facilities--the state-side LWCF matching grant program.
  Title V of H.R. 2107, as passed by both the Senate Appropriations 
Committee and the full Senate, appropriated LWCF moneys for both of 
these programs. In that bill, $100 million was appropriated to the 
stateside LWCF matching grant program, with the remainder appropriated 
for Federal land acquisitions and land exchanges, including $250 
million for the purchase of the Headwaters Forest in northern 
California and $65 million for the purchase of the New World Mine 
property outside of Yellowstone National Park. Both of these 
acquisitions, which were requested by the Clinton administration, were 
made contingent on the enactment of separate authorizing legislation. 
They are not land acquisitions otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act and 
raise substantial land policy questions which reach well beyond the 
property being acquired.
  Unfortunately, in conference, the Senate's efforts to reinvigorate 
the LWCF were undermined. While the total commitment from the LWCF 
included in this bill is by the far the largest in nearly two decades, 
no money is provided for the stateside LWCF matching grant program. At 
the same time, the LWCF moneys appropriated to the Federal land 
management agencies are authorized for uses inconsistent with the LWCF 
Act.
  Moreover, the conferees chose to authorize the acquisition of the 
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine property in this appropriations 
bill. As anyone involved with the conference can attest, I objected to 
this decision and was, at best, an unwilling participant in the process 
to authorize these acquisitions on H.R. 2107. I am left to wonder what 
role the authorizing committees, and the Senate for that matter, are to 
play in the writing of the laws which authorize the spending of the 
taxpayers money and the management of the public's lands. The conferees 
did include requirements which will provide the authorizing committees 
with an opportunity to conduct meaningful review of the acquisitions 
and provide protections to the American taxpayers.


                 stateside lwcf matching grant program

  The stateside LWCF matching grant program is one of two purposes for 
which LWCF moneys can be appropriated. The LWCF Act recognizes that a 
significant portion of the annual LWCF appropriation will be spent on 
the stateside matching grant program and, before the 1976 amendments to 
the LWCF Act, mandated that 60 percent of the annual LWCF appropriation 
go to the stateside LWCF matching grant program. The LWCF Act now 
implies such an appropriation by specifying that ``not less than 40 
percent of [the annual LWCF] appropriations shall be available for 
Federal purposes.'' 16 U.S.C. 460l-7.
  Stateside LWCF matching grants have played a vital role in providing 
recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans. 
Stateside LWCF matching grants have helped finance well over 37,500 
park and recreation projects in all 50 States, including campgrounds, 
trails, and open space. 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 stateside LWCF matching grant program was funded, there were 
nearly 3,800 applications for stateside grants. Unfortunately, there 
was only enough money to fund 500 projects. In the intervening 3 years, 
the local and State demand for those resources only has increased.
  That is why stateside LWCF matching grants are so important. 
Stateside LWCF matching grants help address the highest priority needs 
of Americans for outdoor recreation. At the same time, because of the 
matching requirement for stateside LWCF grants, they provide vital 
seed-money which local communities use to forge partnerships with 
private entities.
  Unlike the Clinton administration, and its House counterparts, the 
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Senate, recognized 
the value of the stateside LWCF matching grant program and appropriated 
$100 million to the program over the next 4 years. The Senate Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee noted, in its report, that ``resource 
protection is not solely the responsibility nor the domain of the 
Federal Government, and that States can in may cases extract greater 
value from moneys'' appropriated from the LWCF.
  While this $100 million appropriation would only have met a fraction 
of the demand for stateside LWCF matching grants, it would have helped 
to restore the historic balance between the State and Federal sides of 
the LWCF. With the action of the Clinton administration and the 
Congress to shut down the stateside LWCF matching grant program in 
fiscal year 1996, the LWCF has become a Federal-only land acquisition 
program. The balance created by the LWCF Act--between the State and 
local communities and the Federal Government; between urban and rural 
communities; between the Western and Eastern States--for the 
acquisition of outdoor recreation resources has been lost. As I have 
expressed before, I believe the loss of this balance is a tragic 
mistake and only serves to increase the already significant pressure on 
the Federal Government to meet the recreation demands of the American 
public. Unfortunately, H.R. 2107 compounds this imbalance.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I plan to 
continue in the 2d session of the 105th Congress, my efforts to 
reinvigorate the stateside LWCF matching grant program. I intend to 
work with the members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to 
fund the stateside LWCF matching grant program in fiscal year 1999. I 
also will search to find a permanent source of funding for the 
stateside LWCF matching grant program so that this annual 
appropriations battle can be avoided. The stateside LWCF matching grant 
program is too important to the America people for Congress to do 
anything less.


                        Federal Use of the LWCF

  The LWCF Act also authorizes LWCF moneys to be used by the Federal 
land management agencies to acquire property, otherwise authorized by 
Congress. Congress envisioned that a substantial part of the LWCF 
moneys allocated for Federal land acquisition should go toward the 
purchase of privately owned inholdings within the authorized boundaries 
of national parks, forests, and refuges.

  Moreover, because the LWCF Act was enacted to establish a funding 
mechanism for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation 
resources, LWCF moneys generally must be spent to purchase such lands. 
The Bureau of Land Management only can use LWCF moneys to purchase 
lands which are primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes. 43 
U.S.C. 1748(d). Similarly, in the absence of a specific authorization, 
the National Park Service only can use LWCF moneys to acquire 
inholdings within national parks for outdoor recreation purposes. 16 
U.S.C. 460l-9(a)(1). Limitations also exist with respect to Forest 
Service and Fish and Wildlife Service use of LWCF moneys.
  However, even with these limitations, the demand for LWCF moneys is 
significant. The four Federal land management agencies have identified 
more

[[Page S11262]]

than 45 million acres of privately owned lands lying within the 
boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, 
national forests, and national wildlife refuges.
  These inholdings increase the operating and management costs of the 
land management units. Much of this acreage is small isolated parcels 
which complicate overall resource planning. These inholdings increase 
the time and cost of management as Federal land management agencies 
must maintain the boundaries, monitor illegal uses, enforce use 
restrictions, process requests for special uses, address trespass 
issues, in addition to many other management responsibilities. At the 
same time, many of these inholders have been waiting decades to receive 
promised compensation from the Federal Government for their property.
  The National Park Service alone, in its fiscal year 1998 budget 
request, estimates that the cost to acquire all the private land 
identified for acquisition within the authorized boundaries of the 
units of the National Park System, excluding the Alaska parks, is $1.5 
billion. Obviously, the costs to purchase these private lands will only 
increase,
  Nonetheless, despite this significant demand for Federal land 
acquisition dollars and the costs associated with inholdings, the 
conferees have chosen to allow LWCF moneys to be spent on uses not 
otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act--critical maintenance by the four 
Federal land management agencies. The LWCF Act does not authorize any 
agency--Federal, State, local to use LWCF moneys for operations and 
maintenance activities. The conferees also authorized $22 million in 
mitigation payments to Humboldt County, CA, and the State of Montana--
again, a use not otherwise authorized by the LWCF Act.
  I am troubled by these decisions which set a dangerous precedent by 
expanding the purposes for which LWCF moneys can be spent. LWCF moneys 
not spent on the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions 
should be limited to the purchase of private land now owned by willing 
sellers within the authorized boundaries of existing land management 
units, consistent with the terms of the LWCF Act.


            Headwaters Forest/New World Mine Authorizations

  The conferees also decided to authorize the Headwaters Forest and the 
New World Mine acquisitions in H.R. 2107. While the Clinton 
administration has conceded that these acquisitions need specific 
authorizations, I strongly believe that such authorizations should not 
be included in an appropriations bill. Rather, such authorizations 
should be the subject of separate legislation which has gone through 
the regular authorization process.
  I want to reiterate that my unwillingness to embrace authorizing 
these two acquisitions on H.R. 2107 comes not from any personal 
opposition to these purchases. I have repeatedly stated over the past 6 
months that I have not formed an opinion on whether or not these 
properties warrant inclusion in the Federal estate because I, and the 
members of my committee, do not know enough about the acquisitions to 
even form an opinion on their merits. Bills authorizing these 
acquisitions have never been introduced in the Senate and my requests 
for information from the administration over the past year have been 
largely ignored. On several occasions I have come to the Senate floor 
to voice my concerns about these acquisitions, but even these efforts 
have failed to get the attention of the administration. It is this very 
lack of information and cooperation, and the resulting unanswered 
questions about the acquisitions, which I believe counseled against 
authorizing these purchases absent a thorough, and open, review by the 
authorizing committees.
  Nonetheless, the appropriators chose to proceed differently. And, 
while I disagreed with this decision, I again would like to thank 
Senator Gorton for his efforts to ensure that the authorizations 
contained in H.R. 2107 protect the role of the authorizing committee 
and the interests of the American taxpayer.
  The conferees provided this protection by prohibiting expenditure of 
the appropriated funds for 180 days. During this time, if no separate 
authorizing legislation is reported, the acquisitions will proceed 
according to the authorizations contained in H.R. 2107. The 
Appropriations Committee has committed to allow any authorizing 
language reported by my committee or the House Resources Committee to 
be attached to the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill.
  During the 180 day review period, the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Secretary of the Interior are to provide Congress with fair market 
value appraisals for both properties. This requirement is critical to 
protect the American taxpayers. The most significant unanswered 
questions about both properties concern their fair market value. 
Because the purchase prices for both the Headwaters Forest and the New 
World Mine property were the result of negotiation and dependent, in 
part, on other terms, the actual fair market value of the properties is 
unknown. The appraisals must comply with the Department of Justice 
``Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions,'' along 
with other applicable laws and regulations. The Comptroller General of 
the General Accounting Office also must evaluate both appraisals. In 
that review, the Comptroller General should examine the methodology and 
data used in the appraisals.
  With respect to the New World Mine, an appraisal is already required 
pursuant to the August 1996 agreement. A 1995 National Park Service 
report estimates the fair market value of the property is less than $50 
million but the Federal Government has agreed to a $65 million purchase 
price.
  As to the Headwaters Forest, there is enormous discrepancy as to the 
property's value. The owner contends the property now has a value of 
close to $1 billion. 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 Federal Government and the State of California have agreed to 
purchase the Headwaters Forest for $380 million.

  To further exacerbate this situation, the Federal tax consequences of 
the Headwaters Forest acquisition have not been considered. The sale of 
the Headwaters Forest is conditioned upon the current landowner 
receiving a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that it can take 
as a business loss the difference between the appraised value of the 
property and the Federal purchase price. The Headwaters Forest 
acquisition will cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars in lost tax revenues, in addition to the $250 million cash 
purchase price.
  In the absence of the appraisal requirements, Congress would have 
found itself in the uncomfortable position of appropriating sums for 
Federal land purchases without any idea whether or not the purchases 
were good deals for the American taxpayers. This is what the Clinton 
administration sought. The Clinton administration wanted Congress to 
ratify the purchase prices for the New World Mine property and 
Headwaters Forest in order to avoid complying with the Uniform 
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act--the act which 
requires a fair market value appraisal of any private property to be 
acquired by the Federal Government. By requiring the completion of 
appraisals before the expenditure of the appropriated funds, Congress 
can determine for itself, and the American taxpayer, the fair market 
value of these properties.
  The authorizations contained in H.R. 2107 also require Secretary of 
the Interior, with respect to the Headwaters Forest acquisition, and 
the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the New World Mine 
acquisition, to submit reports to Congress 120 days after enactment of 
H.R. 2107. These reports must detail the status of the conditions 
imposed in H.R. 2107 on the acquisitions. The reports also will provide 
information which Congress can use in reviewing the acquisitions.
  One of these conditions, imposed on the Headwaters Forest 
acquisition, is the issuance of a incidental take permit under the 
Endangered Species Act based on an acceptable habitat conservation plan 
[HCP]. There currently are a number of questions about the status of 
the Headwaters Forest HCP.

[[Page S11263]]

 The Agreement to purchase the Headwaters Forest requires that the 
Federal Government and the property seller agree to an HCP 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 HCP for this property, the timber company sued the 
Federal Government. Because of the significance of the HCP, within 60 
days of enactment of H.R. 2107, the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Commerce must report to the authorizing committees on 
scientific and legal standards and criteria for species used to develop 
the HCP. All of these issues will be examined during the 180-day review 
period.
  There are questions, with respect to the New World Mine acquisition, 
about the amount of land or interests in land the Federal Government 
will be acquiring. The mining company, which agreed to sell, owns, or 
has under lease, interests in nearly 6,000 acres outside of Yellowstone 
National Park. However, the mining company only has fee title to 1,700 
acres. The remainder is unpatented mining claims. The ownership 
situation is further complicated by the fact that most of the interests 
in the 6,000 acres are owned by a third party not a signatory to the 
agreement with the Federal Government. In conversations, the mining 
company has stated that this third party has agreed to forego her 
rights to develop the mineral reserves of the property for some 
undisclosed price but that she will retain her surface rights. There 
has been no written verification of this arrangement and it remains 
unclear exactly what interests and interests in land the Federal 
Government will acquire for the $65 million purchase price. Again, this 
information needs to be provided to Congress so that it can be examined 
during the 180-day review period.
  My committee also will evaluate the long-term management plans for 
the properties. Who will manage the properties? For what purposes? At 
what costs? With respect to the Headwaters Forest acquisition, how will 
management responsibilities be divided between the Federal Government 
and the State of California? With respect to the New World Mine 
property, how will other mineral containing private property outside 
Yellowstone National Park be treated? Should the Federal Government be 
acquiring those properties in order to prevent other mineral 
development in this area? While an effort has been made to address, at 
least partially, some of these questions in the context of an 
authorization on H.R. 2107, a number of them remain unanswered and need 
to be analyzed in greater depth.
  Again, I would have preferred examining the acquisition of the 
Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine property through the usual 
authorization process; thereby, respecting the roles of the 
appropriation and authorizing committees. Nonetheless, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee will undertake, in good faith, a thorough 
review of the purchases and, if necessary, report out changes to the 
authorizations contained in H.R. 2107 at the beginning of next year for 
inclusion in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill. My 
goal is to ensure that, despite the uncommon circumstances which have 
led us to this point, Congress and the American people can have 
confidence in the decisions to acquire Headwaters Forest and New World 
Mine properties.


                       Denali Mining Acquisitions

  Today, the Senate will agree to passage of the conference report for 
H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. 
Contained within this bill is a provision dealing with mining claims in 
Denali National Park. As chairman of the authorizing committee for 
Department of Interior activities, I regret that the Department has 
delayed resolution of this issue until this year. I would prefer to see 
stand-alone legislation to enact this provision in order to allow those 
affected by repeated Park Service delays to be able to testify on the 
record about them.
  Those Denali inholders who wished to sell their inholdings to the 
Park Service have waited for just compensation for some time in some 
cases. Many inholders have been forced to abandon their claims in order 
to avoid paying the annual maintenance fee. Others have lost their 
claims due to payment of this fee only days late. This is not the way 
to treat Alaskans and it is my personal belief that a taking occurred 
long ago. As such, the date of taking has not been fixed by this 
provision.
  As required by section 202(3)(b) of the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act, a study of the mineral values of this area was 
completed in 1983. This study, known as the DOWL report, clearly 
identifies the high mineral values of the claims in question. With the 
passage of this legislation, it is my hope that the courts will use 
this congressionally authorized report as a guide to determining the 
proper valuations.
  It is my intent to continue to oversee the Park Service's activities 
in regards to this provision to ensure that a resolution to this 
problem is finally reached. I hope that a nearly 15-year-old problem 
will finally be resolved.
  Mr. President, for the record I wish to clarify an important point 
regarding the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. 
That point concerns the Minerals Management Service's rulemaking 
proceedings on the valuation of crude oil from Federal oil and gas 
leases, proceedings which have been underway since January of this 
year. Those proceedings began with a proposed rule to replace the 
longstanding practice of valuing crude oil royalties at the lease where 
the oil is produced with a new system--a system under which valuation 
for oil from any Federal lease anywhere in the country would begin with 
prices bid for future contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or 
NYMEX.
  Concerned about the fairness of the proposal and the fiscal impacts 
of an ill-considered rule, the managers of the appropriations bill have 
charged the MMS to continue to meet with representatives of affected 
states and of Federal leesees. Those meetings should be conducted in a 
manner to permit a full, careful airing of MMS's proposal and the 
several alternatives that have been recommended by States and 
producers. More importantly, those meetings should be conducted in a 
manner designed to move the stakeholders in this issue toward 
consensus.
  MMS has begun the process of continued consultation by holding a 
series of workshops in October. I am aware that Secretary Babbitt has 
received sharp criticism from some who portray these meetings between 
MMS, States, and producers as backroom sessions, even though notice of 
those meetings was published in the Federal Register inviting the 
public to attend. Those critics, however, have already predetermined 
that MMS's NYMEX-price proposal is the only correct way to value 
royalty and that MMS must adopt it immediately.
  The workshops MMS has begun are in fact the beginning of the detailed 
consultation the managers have directed the agency to undertake. From 
statements made by representatives of the MMS and of producers, I 
gather that there is disagreement over whether the current regulations 
need amending to address recent concerns, and significant disagreement 
over how to amend them if amendment is needed. According to statements 
made by MMS representatives, its rulemaking proceedings arose because 
of the agency's concern that the current regulations allowed large, 
integrated oil companies to value royalties by using their own posted 
prices, the prices they publicly state they will pay to purchase oil 
from third parties.
  The workshops MMS has begun are the first real effort directly to 
address and fix the problems MMS and State representatives have 
identified from their audits. I was disappointed to learn, however, of 
MMS's announcement that the workshops would be limited to 30 days. 
While the managers expect the agency to continue to work with dispatch, 
the haste of the workshops evidently has resulted from political 
pressure MMS is receiving from certain quarters. A few workshops in 30 
days cannot adequately explore how to restore confidence in all 
quarters that the royalty valuation program is fairly collecting the 
full value of production at the lease.
  For my part, I intend to ensure that the agency carries out the 
charge the managers have given it. If necessary, I will hold oversight 
hearings next year to assure that the agency explains why the current 
regulations are not working, that it explains how whatever alternative 
it then is pursuing assures

[[Page S11264]]

that the public is receiving royalties based on the fair market value 
of the oil at the lease, and that it reports on its efforts to resolve 
the issues by consensus.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have authority from Senator Byrd to 
yield myself time on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will engage the distinguished manager 
of the bill in a short colloquy, but let me start off by saying that 
there are parts of this bill that are confusing because any bill of 
this magnitude obviously has some things that are hard to understand 
without knowing precisely what was intended. These are fairly arcane 
questions, usually not very entertaining to anybody except those of us 
who deal with issues affecting the Forest Service and the Department of 
the Interior.
  Question No. 1. As I understand it, the U.S. Government will pay $250 
million for the Headwaters Forest as provided in the bill; correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. There is a provision in the bill that says before the 
President can spend that money, the $315 million, which includes both 
the New World Mine and the Headwaters Forest, before the President can 
spend that money to acquire those two properties, the authorizing 
committees of the House and the Senate have 180 days from the date of 
enactment of this bill in which to take action. If they take no action, 
presumably the President would be authorized to go ahead and make the 
purchase?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The second question: Do the authorizing committees have 
the authority under this bill to determine additional conditions under 
which the money can be spent?
  Mr. GORTON. Only by reporting a bill and having that bill passed and 
signed by the President.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, if the President were to veto the bill, because it 
contained some fairly stringent conditions that he found odious and the 
Congress did not override it, would the President still have authority 
to go ahead and make the purchase?
  Mr. GORTON. He would.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Another question: We appropriate $700 million in this 
bill from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. $699 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is close enough.
  So, the $699 million we are appropriating, under current law, the 
appropriate agencies, the Forest Service or the Department of the 
Interior, would have the right to spend other funds unrelated to 
Headwaters Forest and the New World Mine to make the normal kinds of 
purchases that they have always made; is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Subject to approval of the Appropriations Committees of 
both Houses.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The committees?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Right.
  Now, there is a provision in here that says Headwaters Forest must be 
appraised, through a normal appraisal, the appraisal submitted to the 
GAO within 30 days, et cetera.
  My question is, if the appraisal came out that the Headwaters Forest 
was worth more than $250 million, would the President have the 
authority to spend more money out of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund to pay the appraised price?
  Mr. GORTON. I do not believe so. I believe that the President, the 
administration, believes it has a binding contract under which it would 
not have to pay more even though the appraisal came out higher, more 
than the $250 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So we are only authorizing under this bill, and subject 
to the 180 days within which the committees have to act, we are only 
authorizing the expenditure of $250 million for Headwaters Forest?
  Mr. GORTON. Correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If the appraisal came out more than that and Mr. Hurwitz 
decided he wanted the appraised value, we could not pay him the 
appraised value; is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. The administration could not without coming back to the 
Congress.
  Mr. BUMPERS. On another subject, Mr. President. With regard to the 
payment to the State of Montana, there is a provision in this bill--and 
I will not read the whole provision--but it says essentially that not 
later than January 1, the year 2001, but not prior to 180 days from 
enactment--the Secretary and the Governor of Montana will negotiate 
with the understanding that the Federal Government owes them $10 
million in mineral resources for the loss of the New World Mine; is 
that essentially correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Owes them a minimum of $10 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. A minimum?
  Mr. GORTON. They could negotiate a higher figure than that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That brings me to the point. If the Secretary and the 
Governor of Montana cannot agree prior to this date on something 
similar to $10 million, then the Governor of Montana is within his 
right to demand the so-called Otter Creek tracts, which are tracts of 
land with a considerable amount of coal underneath them; is that 
correct?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, I wonder if the Senator has seen some figures 
provided by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition as to what the Otter 
Creek tracts are worth. Let me preface that statement by saying I think 
the people who are following this bill are under the assumption that we 
are going to pay Montana $10 million to offset any economic loss they 
sustained as a result of our purchase of the New World Mine. There are 
going to be some jobs lost, and so on, that they would have otherwise 
gotten. Now, if the Governor of Montana is smart--and I assume he is--
he is not going to negotiate very seriously on this for $10 million 
because he knows if there is no agreement, he gets the Otter Creek 
tracts. The Otter Creek tracts are estimated to have a value of $4.26 
billion.
  Now, if the U.S. Government were to lease those lands to somebody 
under the Mineral Leasing Act, we would charge them a 12.5-percent 
royalty. Half of the royalty from that coal would go to the State of 
Montana and the other half would go to the Federal Treasury. If the 
Governor of Montana is very shrewd, and he can bottle up negotiations 
and not take the $10 million, which most people assume he is going to 
be getting, and the State of Montana will wind up with the Otter Creek 
tracts and own all the coal outright * * * not just get the 12.5-
percent royalty. Does the Senator from Washington know what the Federal 
share of the royalty from this coal would be?
  Mr. GORTON. No.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is $266 million. Does that disturb the Senator? 
Assuming my figures are correct, would that disturb the Senator from 
Washington?
  Mr. GORTON. Well, one has to assume--if you take an assumption that 
the gross revenues are going to be x dollars and that a royalty 
agreement would be 12.5 percent of x dollars, then you simply have an 
arithmetic calculation. There are wide differences of opinion as to the 
value of those tracts. For example, the demand from the State of 
Montana, through its junior Senator and its Congressman, were for twice 
this amount of money. It seems to me that there were losses to the 
State of Montana and that this was an appropriate transfer. I think I 
would have had a very different view, personally at least, toward the 
transfer had this transfer been from the people--that is to say, the 
United States of America--to some private entity. As it is, it is a 
transfer not to the Governor of the State of Montana, as we tend to 
personalize this, but to the State. It remains a limited public asset, 
but a public asset nevertheless. Now, this was a matter which consumed 
a considerable amount of time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I know it was.
  Mr. GORTON. In negotiations over this, it was set up, very bluntly--
and I can put this on the record because it is obviously the case--so 
that if the President feels that is somehow or another totally unwise 
and doesn't mind making the government of the State of Montana unhappy, 
this provision is subject to a line-item veto. It was set up in that 
fashion. The President doesn't have to veto the whole bill or the whole 
$700 million in the land and water conservation fund. So if he feels it 
is disproportionate in some respect, we never have to go through these 
negotiations at all.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, if I may, here are the figures furnished me on

[[Page S11265]]

the point I am trying to make. This is a real bonanza for the State of 
Montana--and I have nothing against them and their two Senators; they 
are two of the dearest friends I have in this body. So it always causes 
me grief when somebody is getting something, just as I am under this 
bill, to say these things. Here is the figure given to me. The Otter 
Creek tracts contain 533 million tons of coal. The current price of 
such coal is $8 a ton. It would come to $4.26 billion, and if you take 
12.5 percent of that, you come out with about $266 million in royalties 
that the State could get. Mr. President, that is a lot more than the 
$10 million that I think most Senators in this body think we are giving 
the State of Montana.
  So I wanted to raise that point because, as you know, 
the administration is pretty concerned about this bill. I don't know 
that the President would veto it. If he were to veto that particular 
provision under the line-item authority that he now has and the Supreme 
Court later determined that the line-item veto is unconstitutional, 
then this is still a viable provision and his line-item veto of it 
would not stand.

  Mr. GORTON. Of course, the same thing is true with respect to all the 
other line-item vetoes, which I think would certainly be representative 
of millions of dollars. The President is exercising that power that was 
given to him by the Congress, and we will find out later whether or not 
they were valid. That would do no more or less than to set this out as 
a separate item. There is, however, a difference between the sale price 
of a mineral once it has been taken out and processed and worked on and 
the value of that same mineral while sitting in the ground. Those two 
are by no means equivalent.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, you and I have talked about this in private. I 
think it is well to get this on the record also. You may have alluded 
to this in your opening remarks. But another item that I think the 
administration is terribly concerned about is the provision in the bill 
that says ``no funds can be spent to revise forest plans until new 
final interim or final rules for forest land management planning are 
published in the Federal Register.'' You know, of course, under the 
national forest management plan, they are required to update the plans 
on the forests periodically. It is my understanding that some 42 plans 
would be blocked until the Forest Service publishes new final interim 
or final rules for forest land management planning. I can tell you that 
is costing the administration considerable pain. Would the Senator like 
to elaborate on that?
  Mr. GORTON. I will comment on that. Obviously, the regulations in 
these forest plans have a tremendous impact not just on the Federal 
Government and management of the Forest Service, but very obviously on 
the communities and the areas in which these forests are located. The 
regulations and the rules that we are talking about have been under 
review for 8 years; that means through two administrations. Evidently, 
they must be rather controversial because they seem to have been about 
ready to promulgate and just before the elections, both in 1992 and 
1996, they were withdrawn. Now we have gone just about a year after the 
last election. And we have been deeply concerned that so many millions 
of dollars have been spent on plan revisions that may just be thrown 
into the wastebasket when these regulations do come out.
  So the design of this provision in the bill is to see to it that an 
administration, after 8 years and these two delays, comes up with final 
or at least interim regulations--something that it ought to be able to 
do within a relatively short period of time. Even so, in spite of 
that--and that was really what we asked them to do here in the Senate--
because the administration had reservations on it, we have two 
exceptions to it. One is, in any forest in which a notice of intent to 
revise was published in the Federal Register before October 1 of this 
year--that is to say, where they were ready to do so; and second, where 
a court order has directed that a revision must occur. So in those two 
instances--and they are pretty big exceptions--this mandate doesn't 
apply at all. In the other case, all we are saying is, at least give us 
interim rules and regulations so that the forest plan revisions will be 
consistent with them when they come out.
  Mr. BUMPERS. One final question and a remark. I see the Senator from 
New Mexico on the floor. He and I have talked about this privately. 
There is a grazing provision in this bill that is of some concern to 
me. There is a court order in New Mexico regarding grazing rights, and 
there is a provision in here that says that none of the funds may be 
used by the Forest Service to carry out a court order. As I told him, I 
am not going to get into that, but I think that has a little bit of 
danger. Just for the record, I will let the Senator say what he said to 
me privately about that provision.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico for that purpose.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator that I did not come to the floor 
to interfere with your work or even to answer this question, but since 
I am here----
  Mr. BUMPERS. If you choose to answer, by all means, do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Actually, Senator, I think I have explained it to 
Senator Gorton when I asked him to do this. Essentially, it does 
nothing more than say, for the remainder of this year, which is almost 
gone, the court order that could have forced some of the small ranchers 
to take their cattle off ranch land and set them aside while they do a 
new evaluation, we said that cannot happen in that manner until after 
this year is past, which is like a month or two. That is all it does.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I think March 1 was the date.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If that's the date, that's the date.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say this to the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, whose friendship I treasure. First of all, he has worked 
tirelessly to craft this bill, and there have been many conflicting 
forces pulling him in one direction or another. I know it has not been 
easy. He has always been very accommodating to me and I want to thank 
him profusely for that. More importantly, I want to tell him I was 
moved a moment ago by the very nice things he said about the role I 
played in the integration of my little school in Charleston, AR, at 
that time, with a population of 1,200. It was the very first school in 
the Old Confederacy to integrate after the Supreme Court decision in 
Brown versus Board of Education. He very generously put a $50,000 
appropriation in here to do a feasibility study about establishing a 
national historic site in that community to commemorate this historic 
event. I express my deep and profound gratitude to him for that. He 
also agreed to include $150,000 for a similar designation for Central 
High School, which was the scene of one of the most, if not the most, 
dangerous situations in the United States since the Civil War.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor. I will 
yield 7 minutes to him.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind 
comments earlier, as well as for his tremendous support of the issue 
which I rise to talk about in the bill. He has been very cooperative, 
to the nth degree, in making sure this funding is in the bill. What I 
am talking about is actually an increase in the amount of funding for a 
national park that I think is one of the most significant and important 
national parks we have in this country, the Gettysburg National 
Battlefield, a battle which represents the high-water mark of the 
confederacy. It is in my State of Pennsylvania. I have had the 
privilege of being there on many occasions and, for the most part, they 
have been very sad occasions. They are times when I have to go up and 
look at the state of disrepair of the battlefield, the absolute 
horrendous conditions in which some of the most significant Civil War 
artifacts are kept. They are kept in basements that are damp. There is 
rot on most of the artifacts, uniforms, soldiers' diaries, 
archeological artifacts, and historical photographs. They are rotting 
away because we have absolutely no place to put them. We also have many 
farmhouses that were there used during the battle, which are crumbling 
and falling apart because we don't have any money to fix them.
  Mr. President, there was an article in the Washington Post today on 
Gettysburg, and there was one in USA Today also on Gettysburg. One 
referred to the

[[Page S11266]]

``next battle of Gettysburg,'' which is the attempt by the Park 
Service--I think a very important attempt--to relocate the visitors' 
center, which sits on Cemetery Ridge right in the middle of the Union 
line. New facilities are desperately needed given the condition of the 
artifacts I mentioned, to restore the battlefield to its intended 
condition, which should be its condition at the time of the battle, and 
to move the visitor center to another location in or near the park. The 
proposal referred to in the news articles is to move the visitors' 
center to a location in the park where there was no fighting that 
occurred and where no one died.

  The primary reason for the Park Service seeking a public-private 
partnership to build the new facilities is, No. 1, the current 
facilities are located in a place where they should not be and to 
provide better preservation and restoration of the artifacts and 
monuments. I visited the battlefield a month ago and reviewed some of 
the cannon carriages. There are some 400 cannons of which 380 are in 
absolute horrible condition. In fact, they are breaking apart, 
cracking, and the paint is chipping off. You have little kids running 
around on the battlefield climbing on top of the cannons with paint 
peeling away. If that happened in a city, or in a house, all the 
inspectors in the world would say that you have to do something to 
repair these cannon carriages.
  But we don't have the money, at least not until today. As much as the 
funding today will help, Gettysburg also needs the new visitor center, 
and they need the private-public partnership because there just isn't 
enough money in the budget to build a new facility. We can't get the 
capital funds.
  This new proposal, however, is meeting with some controversy from 
preservationists who feel we should leave things alone. If we leave 
things alone, though, Gettysburg won't be here very much longer--at 
least the historical documents and artifacts and monuments. I was at 
the Pennsylvania monument recently, one of the largest at the park. It 
is a grand thing. It is a dome-shaped monument. You can walk through it 
and under it--but not when it rains because it leaks, the water drips 
right down on you. You walk around and you see monuments that you can't 
even make out who it is a monument to anymore because they are just 
worn.
  That is no condition for this hallowed ground to be in. I, again, 
thank the Senator from Washington because I came to him with this plea 
after being, frankly, shocked and emotionally moved, after having been 
to that battleground on several occasions, and pleaded with him to do 
something about this state of the battlefield. He said, ``Tell me what 
you need and we will make sure that we fight for it.'' And through the 
process he was there every step of the way and did fight valiantly, and 
we have succeeded in getting an additional million dollars.
  But I will be very honest with you. That is a start. We also need to 
move forward with this new visitor center. I know it may be 
controversial. I know people are saying we have to wait and see. I am 
willing to listen to the preservationists and to those who have 
concerns about the new location being proposed by the Park Service. But 
we cannot delay long. We need to move forward to construct, No. 1, a 
suitable place for us to keep these artifacts. If we do not move 
forward and build a new facility that has the kinds of conditions, 
whether it is humidity, temperature, sunlight, and other things, to 
adequately display the park's treasures, they will be lost. One such 
treasure is the cyclorama painting that was painted back in 1880's. 
Today, the canvas is rippled. It is being destroyed, damaged by time, 
by humidity, by the misconstruction of the building when it was first 
put in. We need to act now to preserve and restore it.
  Today is a first step. I commend the committee and the Senator from 
Washington. We have made a first step today. We need to be vigilant on 
this. We need to come back and work further for more aid for this park 
and others to make sure that we can keep these hallowed grounds in a 
condition that we can be proud of and that we can preserve for 
posterity.
  So I rise to make my colleagues aware of the reasons for which this 
appropriation was targeted, and I encourage the President to be 
supportive of this additional appropriation. I also encourage him to do 
all he can to make sure on the Executive side that we move forward with 
the Park Service in some way quickly to get this new visitor center 
constructed, so we can begin to turn this park around to preserve our 
terrific assets, as well as to present a much better historical 
educational opportunity for people who come to visit the park.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  There are a number of riders attached to this conference report which 
should be cause for concern by my colleagues. I am most troubled by the 
conferees' treatment of the Forest Service purchaser road credit 
program.
  During this body's consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, 
I offered an amendment to eliminate this environmentally destructive 
subsidy. It failed by a single vote. A similar amendment in the House 
also failed by a single vote.
  The purchaser road credit program allows the Forest Service to 
subsidize the road construction costs of timber companies by granting 
credits to them equal to the estimated cost of the roads they need to 
access their timber. Timber purchasers can then use the credit to pay 
for the timber being harvested. Last year these ``purchaser credits'' 
were valued at nearly $50 million.
  In the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill, a 
limit of $25 million was placed on the value of purchaser credits that 
may be offered by the Forest Service in fiscal year 1998. The 
conference report before us today eliminates this cap entirely. The 
Senate report accompanying the bill ``directs the Forest Service to 
continue the timber purchaser credit program without change'' and makes 
it clear that ``the committee has not specified the ceiling for the 
amount of purchaser credits that can be offered'' to timber companies. 
The result of this language is an open-ended subsidy for the timber 
industry.
  Mr. President, in spite of the conferees' decision to expand this 
subsidy, I intend to send a letter to the administration urging them to 
use their discretionary authority to abolish this wasteful and 
environmentally unsound program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
this effort.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.

  Mr. GORTON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from 
Washington for the manner in which he has handled this bill as the 
chairman of the subcommittee for Interior appropriations.
  I presented to the conference at a very late moment an amendment, 
which is amendment No. 128, that modifies the regular amendment that 
was in the original House bill dealing with the problems associated 
with management of Alaska fish and game.
  I want to tell the Senate, in July at our request the Secretary of 
the Interior came to Alaska and met at Senator Murkowski's house with 
me and Congressman Young, with the Governor, the attorney general, and 
members of what we know as the Governor's task force on subsistence. We 
agreed then to try to work together to assure that Alaska, along with 
all other States, would continue to manage fish and game on Federal 
lands within its borders.
  It is a very difficult problem for us, but very clearly Secretary 
Babbitt has carried through with the commitments he made at that time, 
and we have worked toward finding a resolution to these problems.
  This task force did come up with a report. It is a very interesting 
task force. It is made up of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, 
Governor Knowles and Lieutenant Governor Ulmer, also the speaker of the 
house, Gail Phillips; the president of the senate, Mike Miller; a 
former Republican Governor, Jay Hammond; and the

[[Page S11267]]

former Republican attorney general, Charley Cole. Byron Mallot, 
Director of the Alaska Permanent Fund, who has held leadership roles in 
Alaska Native organizations, was also on that task force.
  This task force worked hard over the summer and came up with some 
recommendations. We hoped those recommendations would be presented to a 
joint session of the Alaska Legislature this year. That was not 
possible. When it was really evident it could not be done, I asked the 
conference to adopt this amendment. It is covered on pages 94 and 95 of 
the conference report, and I will not comment at large about it.
  But I do want the Senate to know and the Record to show that we have 
done our best to meet this. Senator Murkowski has just said he is going 
to hold some hearings, and Congressman Young may hold some hearings. I 
do hope they will hold them. I hope they will hold them in Alaska. 
There are a lot of Alaskans who want to be heard on the matter of what 
should be done. The Congress may be asked to adopt further amendments 
next year.
  I yield the floor.


              APPENDIX C STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXTENSION

  Mr GORTON. Will the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I will.
  Mr. GORTON. The conference report contains an amendment dealing with 
land selection rights of five Alaska Native village corporations 
involved in the so-called appendix C conveyance issue. Would the 
chairman provide some background on this issue and explain Congress' 
intentions on how this provision should be interpreted by the courts.
  Mr. STEVENS. The lands at issue were selected by five Alaska Native 
village corporations pursuant to the 1971 Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act. The lands were selected in 1974, pursuant to an 
agreement among the villages, a full 6 years before the creation of 
Lake Clark National Park. For years, the Department followed a course 
of processing village land selections outlined in both appendix A and 
appendix C of the agreement. This prior course is well documented 
including formal conveyance decisions and reservation of easements.
  In the 1990's, the Department changed its course effectively denying 
the village corporations the land to which they are entitled. This 
provision is designed to allow the Native corporations to challenge the 
Department's refusal to convey them their land in a court of law. While 
the Alaska congressional delegation believes the Native people are 
entitled to the land, the Department of the Interior disagrees. We have 
agreed to allow an objective third party decide, based on the facts of 
the case and an interpretation of the 1974 agreement, whether the 
Native people are entitled to the lands in appendix C.
  Because the Interior Department has taken so long to process the 
villagers land claims, the statute of limitations for challenging the 
Department has almost expired. To allow a suit to be filed, the 
conference report extends the statute of limitation through October 1, 
1998, under which the five village corporations and Cook Inlet Region, 
Inc., the regional corporation, may bring litigation challenging the 
Department's refusal to convey the appendix C lands to the village 
corporations.
  The amendment clarifies that if litigation is brought by the village 
corporations or Cook Inlet Region, Inc, it shall be filed in the U.S. 
district court. The court trial permitted in this amendment will result 
in a fresh hearing on the merits of the case.
  The court record will not be limited to the current, incomplete 
administrative record, but shall consider new evidence introduced that 
is relevant to the interpretation of the agreements and conveyances in 
dispute. The language allowing introduction of new evidence was 
proposed by the Office of Management and Budget. This will provide for 
a neutral hearing on the total circumstances of the dispute.
  A fresh look at the case prompted the Anchorage Daily News, the daily 
newspaper in Alaska's largest city with a strong record of 
environmental advocacy to endorse conveyance of the appendix C lands to 
the villages. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in 
the Record.

             [From the Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 24, 1997]

          First Principles Interior, Do Right in Land Dispute

       A long-standing land dispute between the U.S. Department of 
     the Interior and Cook Inlet-area Native village corporations 
     should be settled in the corporations' favor, either through 
     a deal brokered by Sen. Ted Stevens or, better yet, through 
     direct action by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.
       Until Secretary Babbitt steps in, Interior lawyers and 
     high-level bureaucrats will keep fighting with five village 
     corporations and Cook Inlet Region Inc., the Native regional 
     powerhouse that has intervened for its member village 
     corporations. The dispute centers on roughly 29,000 acres of 
     land on the west side of Cook Inlet. The Natives say they're 
     entitled to the acreage, but the department wants to add the 
     disputed parcels to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve.
       On this matter, the Clinton administration unfortunately 
     appears to be more intent on locking up another corner of the 
     state than respecting the will of Congress as expressed by 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
       The 1971 act created Native-owned corporations--both 
     regional and village--to manage settlement money and land. 
     Plain and simple: It is wrong that, over 20 years later, a 
     handful of village corporations in Southcentral Alaska are 
     still awaiting title to selected acreage.
       Both sides look to a 1976 agreement to bolster their 
     respective arguments. The agreement was supposed to sort out 
     competing government and Native interests through land 
     trades. It summarized how trades would take place and in what 
     order lands would be selected and conveyed. Aside from minor 
     amendments, the document hasn't changed--but the feds and 
     Natives have reached different conclusions about what it 
     says.
       Sen. Stevens has unsuccessfully tried several times in 
     recent years to end the dispute in the corporations' favor. 
     His latest attempt suffered a setback Thursday when it was 
     cut out of a Department of the Interior budget bill. While it 
     is commendable that Alaska's senior senator has gone to bat 
     for a just cause, it is unfortunate that his latest effort 
     was special-interest legislation attached to the coattails of 
     a bigger bill.
       The preferable alternative: Secretary Babbitt can and 
     should direct his staff to convey the disputed acreage to the 
     five Cook Inlet-area village corporations via Cook Inlet 
     Region Inc. While he and park proponents may not like the 
     results--after all, the land can be used for commercial 
     purposes--the anticipation of what may happen later should 
     not stop him from doing the right thing now.
       If, after nearly three decades, a just portion of an 
     aboriginal land settlement is circumvented by clever 
     bureaucrats, then the integrity of Congress will have been 
     compromised so that a national park can be expanded.
       The right and only call for Secretary Babbitt to make is to 
     lay this old chapter of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act to rest and turn over title of the disputed land to its 
     rightful owners.

  Mr. GORTON. It is my view that the amendment the conferees agreed to 
requires a full trial to be held if a lawsuit is filed and allows the 
parties to introduce all relevant evidence. Do you agreement with that 
interpretation?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. It is the intent of the amendment that a trial on 
the merits be conducted in the U.S. District Court if the villages 
decide to file suit. Such a trial would be held in lieu of an 
administrative hearing conducted by the Department of the Interior and 
in lieu of a court appeal of any administrative decision that was 
limited to the current, incomplete administrative record.
  The court must hear all relevant evidence related to the 
circumstances surrounding the land selections and conveyances and 
should not be limited to hearing only the views of the Interior 
Department or reviewing the limited administrative record that 
currently exists. Nor, in my opinion, should it defer to any prior 
decision that was not based on a hearing and a full review of the 
facts.
  In order to ensure justice for the parties, it is necessary that the 
court have all relevant evidence available to it. Since this dispute 
has a complex fact pattern that stretches over 20 years, the case 
should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.
  The lands sought by the village corporations were originally selected 
in 1974. The selections were accomplished with the assistance of 
officials at the Bureau of Land Management. The village corporations 
have never varied in their selection priorities, and the selection 
priorities must be honored by the Federal Government. Those of us who 
are familiar with the history of this dispute understand that the 
purpose of the Deficiency Agreement was to give effect to the land 
selections made by the village corporations.

[[Page S11268]]

  The lands should be conveyed to the villages in the priority order in 
which they were selected, the same requirement that applies to all land 
conveyances made to Native corporations under the Alaska Native Land 
Claims Settlement Act. It is important to read all provisions of the 
agreements in question in the context in which they were negotiated and 
in light of the legislative purpose the agreements served to fulfill 
village land selection rights.
  I regret that litigation may be necessary in this case. I am 
disturbed that the Department of the Interior decided to change its 
interpretation of the conveyance requirement and is using a very 
limited interpretation of the Deficiency Agreement to clear title to 
the appendix C lands. The Department is attempting to acquire more land 
for Lake Clark National Park. However, it is important to note that the 
boundaries of Lake Clark National Park were not expanded to potentially 
include appendix C lands until 6 years after the original land 
selections were made by the village corporations in 1974. As a result, 
the appendix C lands are not park lands by virtue of the prior valid 
Native land selections.
  Since enactment of ANCSA, there has been a substantial amount of 
litigation regarding interpretation of the statute, but no case has 
been heard that is directly on point with respect to appendix C. 
Further no opinion--including Court of Claims cases--has been issued 
interpreting the Deficiency Agreement based on a full hearing of all 
the relevant evidence. It is one purpose of this amendment to ensure 
that the district court's resolution of the present matter will not be 
bound by any decision or opinion not based on a full review of the 
legal and factual record. The court must take a new look at the dispute 
after reviewing a full and complete record.
  Mr. GORTON. The Interior Department has not responded to the 
authorizing committees' requests in either the House or the Senate for 
resolution of this matter. As chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, 
can Senator Murkowski elaborate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. During the past Congress, both the House Resources 
Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held 
hearings on this dispute. We heard from members of the villages seeking 
their lands as well as from the Department of the Interior. At the end 
of the Senate hearing in September 1996, I asked if the Department of 
the Interior was willing to work with the villages to come to a 
resolution. While its initial indication was yes, more than 6 months 
later, no action had been taken.
  On January 2 of this year, Chairman Young and I wrote to Secretary 
Babbitt requesting again that appropriate department policy level 
officials meet with the affected villages and the regional corporation 
as soon as possible to negotiate a resolution acceptable to the 
administration and the Alaska Native corporations. Again, there was no 
serious effort to seek a resolution.
  Having no indication that the Department was willing to even try to 
negotiate a settlement of this dispute, Chairman Young and I wrote to 
Chairman Stevens on April 25 asking him to include language in the 
Interior appropriations bill to ensure conveyance of the disputed land 
to the villages.


           CHANGES TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ALLOCATION

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 205 of House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
1998, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the 
allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect new budget 
authority and outlays provided for priority Federal land acquisitions 
and exchanges.
  I ask unanimous consent that revisions to the 1998 Senate 
Appropriations Committee budget authority and outlay allocations, 
pursuant to sec. 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following 
amounts, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the revisions were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget authority       Outlays     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary.........    269,000,000,000    266,823,000,000
    Nondefense discretionary......    255,550,000,000    283,243,000,000
    Violent crime reduction fund..      5,500,000,000      3,592,000,000
    Mandatory.....................    277,312,000,000    278,725,000,000
    Total allocation..............    807,362,000,000    832,262,000,000
Adjustments:                                                            
    Defense discretionary.........  .................  .................
    Nondefense discretionary......       -700,000,000       -257,000,000
    Violent crime reduction fund..  .................  .................
    Mandatory.....................  .................  .................
    Total allocation..............       -700,000,000       -257,000,000
Revised allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary.........    269,000,000,000    266,823,000,000
    Nondefense discretionary......    254,850,000,000    282,986,000,000
    Violent crime reduction fund..      5,500,000,000      3,592,000,000
    Mandatory.....................    277,312,000,000    278,725,000,000
    Total allocation..............    806,662,000,000    832,126,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to explain the need for a 
reallocation in funding authority for the Appropriations Committee that 
is being filed today.
  I regret that this reallocation is necessary because it was 
avoidable.
  Section 205 of the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution provided for 
the allocation of $700 million in budget authority for Federal land 
acquisitions and to finalize priority land exchanges upon the reporting 
of a bill that included such funding.
  The Senate-reported Interior appropriations bill included this 
funding in title V. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I allocated 
these funds to the Appropriations Committee, which in turn provided 
them to the Interior Subcommittee.
  If the conferees had adopted the Senate language, I would not be here 
withdrawing this funding allocation. However, the conferees modified 
the Senate language to provide only $699 million for land acquisitions, 
and to expand the use of these funds for the following purposes:
  Critical maintenance activities are added as an allowable activity 
under this title V funding;
  Ten million dollars is provided for a payment to Humboldt County, CA, 
as part of the Headwaters land acquisition; and
  Twelve million dollars is provided for repair and maintenance of the 
Beartooth Highway as part of the Crown Butte/New World Mine land 
acquisition.
  The Senate Budget Committee provided clarifying language to the 
conferees on the Interior appropriations bill during their meeting on 
September 30. This language simply restated that monies provided in 
title V, when combined with monies provided by other titles of the bill 
for Federal land acquisition, shall provide at least $700 million for 
Federal land acquisitions and to finalize priority land exchanges.
  This language, which I urged be included throughout the past 2 weeks 
while final language was drafted, would have ensured that the section 
205 allocation remained in place for this bill.
  The chairmen decided to include, however, language which attempts to 
trigger the additional $700 million by amending the budget resolution. 
This language causes a violation under section 306 of the Budget Act 
because it affects matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee.
  Since this language will not become effective until the bill is 
signed into law, and the conferees did not clarify that $700 million is 
included in the bill for land acquisition and priority land exchanges, 
I have no choice but to withdraw the additional allocation of funding 
provided in section 205 of the budget resolution.
  I worked diligently as a member of the conference to complete this 
important bill, working with my good friend, the senior Senator from 
Washington, who chairs this subcommittee.
  The inclusion of a simple proviso would have avoided this problem. I 
regret that the chairmen of the conference chose not to do so, and that 
this withdrawal of funding is now necessary.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the 
provisions included in the final version of the Interior appropriations 
bill be printed in the Record, along with a letter I sent to the 
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee about these issues at his 
request.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Changes to the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies 
              Appropriations Bill Since Formal Conference


           $700 million land acquisition and maintenance fund

       The conference agreement for the fiscal year 1998 Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act provides an 
     additional $699 million for priority land acquisitions and 
     exchanges, and for reducing the maintenance backlogs of the 
     Federal land management agencies. This special appropriation 
     was first

[[Page S11269]]

     referenced by the balanced budget agreement this Spring 
     between the Congress and the Administration, which provided 
     an additional $700 million for priority land acquisitions and 
     exchanges. The Senate version of the Interior Appropriations 
     bill included the special appropriation for land acquisition; 
     the House version did not.
       A portion of these funds will be used to acquire two 
     specific pieces of land--the Headwaters Forest in California 
     and the Crown Butte/New World Mine property near Yellowstone 
     National Park. Both of these acquisitions are high priorities 
     of the Administration. Congress, in appropriating funds for 
     these two acquisitions, has stipulated conditions that ensure 
     the wise use of Federal taxpayer dollars, the development of 
     State and local partnerships, and the appropriate use of 
     proper procedures--including valuations, public appraisals 
     and adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act.
       These two Administration projects will require up to $315 
     million in Federal funds--up to $250 million for the 
     Headwaters Forest and up to $65 million for Crown Butte/New 
     World Mine. The State of California will provide $130 million 
     for the Headwaters Forest acquisition. The Headwaters 
     acquisition will be accompanied by a single payment of 
     $10,000,000 for Humboldt County, California, to help offset 
     lost tax revenues and cover anticipated increases in public 
     health and safety costs incurred by the County. The Crown 
     Butte/New World Mine acquisition will be accompanied by an 
     additional Federal expenditure of $12,000,000 to improve and 
     maintain the Beartooth Highway. The conference agreement also 
     directs that a Federal/State study be undertaken to identify 
     and encourage mineral resource development in the State of 
     Montana. Bill language also directs a $10 million transfer of 
     Federal mineral rights to the State of Montana.
       Both the Headwaters Forest and the Crown Butte/New World 
     Mine acquisitions are delayed for 180 days, during which time 
     the conditions that govern these acquisitions will be 
     reviewed by the Congressional authorizing committees and may 
     be modified through additional legislation. To the extent 
     that the appraisal process causes a delay, the 180 day period 
     will be extended by an equivalent number of days.
       The remainder of the $699 million will be used for other 
     priority land acquisitions and for critical repair and 
     restoration needs of the four land management agencies: 
     National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau 
     of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service. The Secretaries 
     of Agriculture and the Interior will submit requests to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for approval 
     for the use of the traditional land acquisition and 
     maintenance funds. The Secretaries are encouraged to 
     emphasize projects that reduce their critical maintenance 
     backlogs and to select land acquisitions which complete a 
     unit, consolidate lands for more efficient management, or 
     address critical resource needs.


                   pennsylvania avenue modifications

       Amendment #158 has been modified, as requested by the 
     Administration, regarding the limitation of expenditures of 
     funds in this bill to implement changes to Pennsylvania 
     Avenue in front of the White House.


                     national park service housing

       The report language has been slightly modified to require 
     the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a review committee, 
     a majority of whose members are not employees of the National 
     Park Service, to review the construction practices of the 
     National Park Service and to submit no later than April 15, 
     1998, a report of their findings and recommendations to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.


             lake clark national park and preserve, alaska

       Amendment #68 has been modified, as requested by the 
     Administration.


        Summary                                             In Millions
Headwaters...................................................up to $250
Crown Butte....................................................up to 65
Humboldt Co..........................................................10
Beartooth Hwy........................................................12
Other land/maintenance..............................................362
                                                       ________________
                                                       
                                  [Dept. of the Interior: $272 million]
                                     [U.S. Forest Service: $90 million]
    Total..................................................$699 million
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 23, 1997.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: I regret that I have to bring to your attention 
     two Budget Act violations that will lie against the 
     conference report on the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill.
       The conference report fails to meet the terms of section 
     205 of the FY 1998 budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) 
     regarding priority land acquisition funding. Therefore, I 
     must withdraw the additional $700 million for priority land 
     acquisition and exchanges to the Appropriations Committee for 
     consideration of the conference report on the Interior bill. 
     Assuming the Appropriations Committee reduces the section 
     302(b) allocation for the Interior bill by this amount, the 
     conference report on the Interior bill would violate section 
     302(f) of the Budget Act.
       The Interior bill also would amend the FY 1998 budget 
     resolution to relax the requirements of section 205. Because 
     this provision affects matter in the Budget Committee's 
     jurisdiction, it would cause another violation under section 
     306 of the Budget Act. If a point of order is raised under 
     either one of these sections, it takes 60 votes in the Senate 
     to waive either of these points of order.
       At the Administration's insistence, the Balanced Budget 
     Agreement included $700 million in spending for priority land 
     acquisition and exchanges. I worked for a more flexible 
     mechanism to allocate funding for priority land acquisition, 
     but the White House insisted on very restrictive language. As 
     a result, section 205 of the FY 1998 budget resolution 
     provides that the $700 million will only be made available to 
     the Appropriations Committee if the Interior Appropriations 
     bill provided $700 million for priority land acquisition and 
     exchanges.
       The Senate-passed Interior bill met the budget resolution's 
     requirements by providing $700 million for land acquisition 
     activities. During the conference on the Interior bill, the 
     Senate language was modified and I provided some additional 
     language to the conferees that would have ensured $700 
     million was spent on land acquisition, thereby meeting the 
     budget resolution's requirements. Instead, the tentative 
     conference agreement included language amending the budget 
     resolution. My staff has been in touch with both Senator 
     Gorton's staff and your staff to indicate that the tentative 
     conference agreement on the Interior bill would violate the 
     Budget Act. Even so, the conferees chose to ignore my 
     suggestion.
       The Interior conference report provides $699 million for 
     land acquisition. Of this funding, it provides that the money 
     can be used for purposes other than land acquisition, 
     including maintenance activities, PILT payments, and highway 
     improvements. While the Interior conference report attempts 
     to trigger the additional $700 million by amending the budget 
     resolution, I cannot take this language into account until 
     the Interior bill becomes law.
       If we took language amending the budget resolution into 
     account for determining budgetary levels, the budget 
     resolution and our efforts to enforce a balanced budget plan 
     would become meaningless. Instead of making the hard choices 
     to live within the budget resolution's levels, committees 
     could simply rely on the precedent that would be established 
     in the Interior bill and amend the budget resolution to 
     assert they had complied with budgetary limits. Finally, the 
     budget resolution is a congressional document that does not 
     require the President's signature and I think it is 
     inappropriate to amend the budget resolution through a law.
       I recognize the extraordinary effort you and Senator Gorton 
     have put into writing an Interior bill that can pass both 
     Houses and be signed by the President. I also realize that 
     the issue is not the total level of spending, but how this 
     additional $700 million will be spent. My concern is with the 
     precedent to amend a budget resolution that will be 
     established by the Interior Appropriations bill, which is 
     avoidable, and that is why I attempted to resolve this issue 
     during the Interior conference to avoid any Budget Act 
     violations.
       I regret that I have to withdraw the additional allocation 
     to the Appropriations Committee for land acquisition funding, 
     but I have no choice.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Pete V. Domenici,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I also object to the inclusion of 
directed scorekeeping language in this bill. If the Senator took 
language amending the budget resolution into account for determining 
budgetary levels, the budget resolution levels and our efforts to 
enforce a balanced budget plan would become meaningless.
  Instead of making the choices necessary to live within the budget 
resolution levels, committees could simply rely on a precedent to 
assert, or ``deem,'' that they had complied with the budgetary limits, 
even though they hadn't.
  Such action would undermine the budget discipline of the Senate.
  Since the directed scorekeeping language will not become effective 
until the bill is signed into law, and the conferees did not clarify 
that $700 million is included in the bill for land acquisition and 
priority land exchanges, I have no choice but to withdraw the 
additional allocation of funding provided in section 205 of the budget 
resolution for land acquisition and exchanges.


                    miccosukee settlement amendment

  Mr. MACK. I rise today to thank my colleague, Senator Gorton, for 
including language in the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill 
concerning a settlement between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 
Florida and the State of Florida. The Mack-Graham amendment is a clear, 
noncontroversial piece of legislation that finalizes the settlement 
between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the State of 
Florida with regards to land takings claims.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I, too, thank Senator Gorton for his support to include 
this provision in the final bill. Do I correctly understand that title 
VII of the

[[Page S11270]]

Interior appropriations bill will ratify the settlement agreement 
signed by the State of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe in 1996?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. I understand the Mack-Graham 
amendment is in accordance with congressional findings that the 
settlement agreement requires the consent of Congress in connection 
with land transfers. I concur with my colleagues from Florida that the 
Miccosukee Settlement Act of 1997 expresses the desire of Congress to 
resolve the dispute between the State of Florida and the Miccosukee 
Tribe.


  Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Management Program

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
regarding funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program 
within the Bureau of Land Management.
  Mr. GORTON. Certainly.
  Mr. CRAIG. I understand that the conferees to the Interior bill 
agreed to provide $15,866,000 for the wild horse and burro program for 
fiscal year 1998. That amounts to the same funding level for the 
program as was provided for fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Gorton and 
Senator Byrd, for balancing the competing interests that are presented 
by the programs of the Interior bill, all of which have very vocal 
constituencies. I would like to clarify that, if the Bureau of Land 
Management believes that the funding provided in this bill is 
insufficient to carry out the objectives of wild horse and burro 
management, procedures for reprogramming must be followed by the 
Agency. Is it the managers' intention that funding not be reallocated 
absent the involvement of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. If the BLM believes that it needs 
more money at any time during fiscal year 1998 for the wild horse and 
burro program, or any other BLM program, there are reprogramming 
guidelines which must be followed.
  Mr. BYRD. My colleague, Senator Gorton, is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy. As the chairman knows, the Senate provided $100 million from 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the stateside matching grant 
program. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing the interests of 
over 30 Senators to revitalize this program. When the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund was created, the State matching program was launched 
to assist States in the acquisition of parks and recreation facilities. 
This is as it should be. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was 
created on the premise that revenues generated by the depletion of our 
Nation's energy resource should be reinvested in the conservation of 
our resources through land acquisition for Federal, State and local 
priorities. The matching grants have helped finance over 37,500 park 
and recreation projects throughout the United States. These are 
projects each one of us can identify in our home States that are now 
used as ballparks, hiking trails, river access, and greenspace. 
Although the conference report does not set aside funds for the State 
matching program, the Interior Department may use part of the $700 
million appropriation for this purpose. Is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, that is correct. The conference report states that 
the $700 million appropriation may be used for priority land 
acquisitions, land exchanges, and other activities consistent with the 
Land and Water conservation Fund Act of 1965. The original provisions 
of that act make it clear--that available resources can and should be 
redistributed to the American people through State and local 
decisionmaking.
  Mr. LEAHY. Am I correct then that under existing authority, the 
Secretary of the Interior may use these funds for the State matching 
program with the approval of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committee? As the chairman is aware, the National Conference of Mayors, 
the Western Governors Association, and the National Association of 
Governors urged Congress to appropriate funds for this program. You 
have already stated your commitment to the budget agreement that 
allocated the $700 million for land acquisition. Do you agree that 
revitalization of the State matching program could be a component of 
the Interior Department project list sent to the Appropriations 
Committees for use of this Land and Water Conservation Fund 
appropriation?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senate bill made it clear that the State matching 
program should be a priority for use of these funds. Although the 
conference report does not set aside funds for this program, numerous 
Senators expressed their concern about the future of the State program. 
The need for this program is evident in requests from every State for 
Federal assistance to invest in State and local recreation resources.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman for clarifying this point. I also 
want to commend the chairman for his work on the entire Interior 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. STEVENS. I also rise to explain section 120 of the Interior 
appropriations bill, which provides a right of action for owners of 
mining claims in the area in Denali National Park and Preserve known as 
the Kantishna Mining District. This provision is designed to bring an 
end to nearly 20 years of uncertainty surrounding the future of these 
claims, and it will ensure that the owners of the claims receive just 
compensation in return for their interests.
  The plan envisioned by this provision addresses the unique needs of 
both sides of the debate over the future of mining at Denali National 
Park and Preserve. The American people, through the National Park 
Service, will receive the title to lands within the Denali National 
Park and Preserve and near its crown jewel--Mount McKinley. With this 
provision, we are assured that those lands will be held for the benefit 
of all Americans. In return, the owners of mining claims who 
participate in the program will be fairly compensated for the loss of 
their interest that has been uncompensated since mining was effectively 
terminated in the mining district many years ago.
  At this time I wish to clarify my understanding of the provision. We 
have provided a way for the Secretary of the Interior to take title to 
mining claims inside Denali National Park, following procedures 
outlined in the Declaration of Taking Act. We have also identified the 
mechanism by which the owners of the mining claims who choose to 
participate and transfer title to their claims are to be compensated 
for the loss of their claims. The Congress has not, however, fixed the 
dates as of which the claims at issue were taken, as that is a factual 
question best left to the parties to determine or, if necessary, for 
resolution by the jury in proceedings under section 120. Moreover, it 
is our intention that any action that is brought either by the 
Secretary or affected claim owners be conducted in accordance with the 
substantive and procedural law of the Declaration of Taking Act, except 
where inconsistent with claim owners' rights under section 120, and the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the claimaint's right to 
have a trial by jury.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself so much of the 10 minutes 
I use as I had allocated to me in the unanimous-consent agreement to 
make an explanation of why I intend to vote against the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, the House voted on July 10 to cut off funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 1998. It was expected 
that if we would come to Washington to reduce the size of Government, 
we would at least stop funding the kind of offensive art that has been 
the subject of so many disputes that have attended the existence of the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  Senator Helms and I offered an amendment to eliminate funding for the 
NEA, but it did not pass in the Senate. The Senate voted on September 
17

[[Page S11271]]

to increase the NEA's current $99.5 million budget to $100 million. 
Then on September 30, the conferees to the Interior appropriations bill 
provided $98 million for the NEA for fiscal year 1998.
  So the House voted zero; the Senate voted an increase to $100 
million; and we have compromised on $98 million. That simply does not 
reflect the kind of discipline the American people expect at a time 
when we are taxed at the highest level in history. Americans spend more 
money in taxes now than ever before in the history of this country on a 
percentage basis. Congress should not be in the business of subsidizing 
speech, of saying to one artist, ``Your art is good,'' and to another 
artist, by implication, since it did not qualify for the Federal 
funding, ``Your art is bad.''
  I do not believe Congress should be telling people what to like and 
what not to like. The genius of a democracy is not the values of the 
central Government imposed on the people. The genius of a democracy is 
the values of the people imposed on the central Government.
  Congress has no constitutional authority to create or fund the NEA, 
and in my judgment it is wrong for us to continue to fund it. Although 
funding for the NEA is small in comparison to the overall budget, 
elimination of this agency sends the message that Congress is taking 
seriously its obligation to restrict the Federal Government's actions 
to the limited role envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. 
Nowhere does the Constitution grant any authority that could reasonably 
be construed to include promotion of the arts.
  This is a time when we have a high demand on our citizens for taxes, 
and for us to take money to promote the notion of art that someone in 
Washington thinks is great and to try to impose that on the people 
through the so-called ``governmental seal of approval'' is an 
inappropriate expenditure of public resources.
  I am particularly disappointed because we have a situation where the 
Congress of the United States could have compromised at least far more 
substantially to protect the people and did not. The House at zero, the 
Senate at $100 million, the compromise at $98 million. That is simply 
an inappropriate way for us to conclude, and for that reason I intend 
to vote against the National Endowment for the Arts as part of this 
bill, and I will vote against this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Interior 
appropriations conference report. I do so with great respect for its 
managers, Senators Byrd and Gorton and in recognition of the difficult 
job which they have faced in bringing this bill together. They have 
done a fine job juggling this contentious bill and I applaud them for 
their efforts.
  Mr. President, I'd like to talk a minute about worthwhile Federal 
investments contained in this bill. First, let me talk about the 
National Endowment for the Arts. This agency makes a real difference in 
Montana. It allows groups like Shakespeare in the Parks to go to over 
50 Montana towns, including Birney, a town of only 17.
  Every year, the cast and supporters of Shakespeare in the Parks clear 
a spot on Poker Jim Butte and put on a show. Citizens come from the 
nearby reservation, area ranches, and over the border from Wyoming to 
see classic Shakespeare works. It's a real community gathering and 
balloons the size of Birney for the day. And make no mistake, it 
probably wouldn't happen without NEA funding. This bill funds this 
valuable program.
  I have been a longtime advocate of preserving the quality of life we 
in Montana and in America enjoy. This Interior bill also goes a long 
way toward preserving some of the last, best places for our children. 
First, it dedicates $1.5 million to help finish the Gallatin II land 
exchange near Bozeman, MT. Next, it earmarks $1 million for purchasing 
easements and land in the Blackfoot Valley.
  This area isn't far from where I grew up. I've hunted, fished, and 
hiked in those hills and I can tell you of its beauty. We can be proud 
that because of this investment, our children will have the same access 
to this region that I did as a boy.
  Mr. President, our rivers are under attack by a malady known as 
whirling disease. This parasitic condition causes the deterioration of 
fish muscles, eventually causing the fish to die. It has been found in 
many Blue Ribbon Montana rivers and is slowly spreading across the 
West. Our critical fisheries are at risk and Western States are faced 
with the potential loss of millions of dollars in tourism and fish 
agricultural revenues. Scientists at Montana State University's Fish 
Technology Center are hard at work today identifying the causes of this 
disease and potential cures.
  It is cutting edge science and it is making a difference. This bill 
recognizes that and funds this research at an appropriate level.
  The Interior Appropriations bill also contains $699 million in 
increased funding for the land and water conservation fund. This will 
help our Nation to acquire environmentally critical lands including a 
number of parcels that have been rated as a high priority in Montana. 
Specifically, the bill provides $65 million in land and water 
conservation funding to acquire the New World Mine property next to 
Yellowstone National Park.
  If built, this mine would have harmed Yellowstone National Park. It 
would have polluted waters flowing into the park and would have harmed 
the park's wildlife herds. Montanans overwhelmingly opposed 
construction of this mine.
  Last year, when the Clinton administration, local citizens, and the 
mining company reached an agreement that would keep the mine from being 
built, the entire region breathed a sigh of relief.
  And now it is time to finish that agreement.
  The New World agreement provides that the Federal Government will 
purchase the property from the mining company, thus protecting 
Yellowstone for our children. But its benefits don't stop there. The 
agreement also requires the mining company to spend $22.5 million to 
clean up historic mining pollution in the area. This not only improves 
the environment, it also creates jobs for Montana. That is truly a win-
win solution.
  As this bill moved through Congress, I worked hard to ensure that the 
money would be included to complete the New World agreement. And I am 
glad that has been done.
  As part of the New World negotiations, we were able to further 
protect the local economy in Montana by appropriating $12 million to 
repair the area's main highway leading into Yellowstone National Park. 
Charles Kuralt called the Beartooth Highway the most beautiful road in 
America. With the money contained in this bill, we will be able to 
maintain that highway, enhance the local economy, and ensure that the 
American people continue to have access to the treasures of Yellowstone 
National Park.
  The agreement reached between me, the administration, and House and 
Senate negotiators is truly in the best interests of Montana and of the 
Nation. It protects Yellowstone, cleans up the environment, creates 
jobs, and helps provide public access to our Nation's first national 
park.
  However, the final version of the Interior appropriations bill also 
contains a provision that we did not agree to. It requires the transfer 
of $10 million or more worth of coal to the State of Montana. This 
provision was outside of the scope of the agreement that we negotiated 
with the White House and the other Members of Congress.
  I support the development of coal in eastern Montana. But I also 
understand that the White House objects to the inclusion of this coal 
transfer. I expect that the White House will attempt to remove this 
coal either through a full veto of the bill or through a line-item veto 
of the coal transfer.
  Coal was not included in our negotiated agreement on New World 
because the White House objected to its inclusion and because of fears 
that it could jeopardize the New World agreement. Now that Congress has 
included coal in the final bill, I hope that this issue does not stand 
in the way of our ability to complete the New World

[[Page S11272]]

agreement. It would be a crime to get this close to completing the 
agreement only to have it fall apart--jeopardizing Yellowstone, MT jobs 
and the Beartooth Highway as well.
  So, Mr. President, we are nearing the conclusion of a long process. I 
hope that all parties will continue to work with me to complete the New 
World agreement as expeditiously as possible. And I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this measure that will achieve the successful 
protection of this national treasure.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we approach the end of this session, 
the Congress will be asked to consider the remaining 6 appropriations 
bills in relatively short order. Clearly, it is important to pass these 
annual spending bills in a timely fashion to preclude the inconvenience 
and expense of delaying unnecessarily essential government programs. 
However, in our haste to adjourn, it would be a disservice to the 
American taxpayer to ignore the wasteful spending contained in these 
bills.
  The Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 is filled with 
numerous earmarks and set-asides for low-priority, unnecessary, and 
wasteful spending projects.
  For example, this bill contains three directed land transfers which, 
to the best of my knowledge, have not been screened through the normal 
process at the General Services Administration. Two of these 
provisions--dealing with the Bowden Fish Hatchery in West Virginia and 
certain BLM lands in Nevada--specifically state that Federal property 
will be given away without compensation. Certainly, one can 
legitimately question whether these are good deals for the American 
taxpayer, or just for those residing in the affected States.
  Another provision of the bill, section 136, directs the Army to build 
a bridge across the Bull River in Alaska. This bridge is to provide 
access to the Golden Zone Mine for students at the School of Mineral 
Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. In addition, the 
Army is directed to donate, free, two 6x6 vehicles for the use of the 
university. The provision does not specify how much the Army is 
supposed to pay for these large, all-terrain vehicles, nor does it 
provide a cost estimate for the bridge. This single provision could 
cost the Army tens of millions of dollars.
  The bill sets aside $800,000 for the World Forestry Center for 
continuing scientific research on land exchanges in the Umpqua River 
Basin region in Oregon.
  I am disappointed that the conferees decided to earmark almost half 
of the $699 million provided for priority land acquisitions and 
exchanges in title V of this bill. The Senate bill contained earmarks 
to which certain Members of this body objected very strenuously, and 
these earmarks are included in the conference agreement, together with 
two new earmarks.
  I am concerned that the conferees also chose to delete the Senate 
provision which outlined specific criteria for determining the highest 
priority acquisitions and exchanges that would be accomplished with 
these additional dollars. I plan to pursue the establishment of 
objective, consistent criteria so that the limited funds available for 
ensuring the preservation of our natural resources are spent wisely.
  Finally, the conferees have included the usual requirement that all 
contracts awarded using funds provided in this bill should be expended 
in full compliance with all of the protectionist Buy America provisions 
that Congress has enacted over the years. These laws and regulations 
are anti-free trade and cost American taxpayers millions of dollars 
every year due to lack of free and fair competition of these contracts.
  Now, let me turn to the report language.
  Once again, the conferees have made clear that they endorse the 
language contained in either the House or Senate report, unless they 
mention it in the conference report. This ensures that every earmark 
and set-aside that is not specifically addressed by the conferees 
remains in place.
  Let's look at some of the earmarks in the conference report itself.
  --$100,000 earmarked from land management funding for the Alaska Gold 
Rush Centennial.
  --$700,000 earmarked from wildland fire management funding for a type 
I hot-shot crew in Alaska, and $1.925 million for redevelopment of the 
obsolete fire center in Billings, MT.
  --$400,000 of Fish and Wildlife Service funding for Alabama 
sturgeons.
  --$400,000 for the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse.
  --$300,000 for research on whirling disease.
  --$450,000 in various accounts earmarked for the Lewis and Clark 
Trail, including technical assistance and office funding.
  --$2 million for an Alaska mineral and geological data base, and 
another $2 million for the Alaska minerals at risk project.
  --$500,000 for a project at Purdue University in Indiana to improve 
fine hardwood trees.
  I note with interest that, in order to fit all of the earmarks into 
this bill, the conferees had to agree to account totals that exceed the 
levels in either the Senate or House bills. In seven different 
accounts, the conferees agreed to funding which exceeded the amounts in 
either bill. Altogether, the conferees added $188 million more than the 
House had provided for these accounts, and $90.6 million more than the 
Senate had provided. Technically, these accounts are outside of the 
scope of the conference, a practice which I understand is not unheard 
of, but which is all the most disturbing when it is done merely to 
accommodate earmarks for these low-priority projects.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list 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 Conference Agreement on H.R. 2107, Fiscal 
                 Year 1998 Interior Appropriations Act

                             Bill Language

       Earmarks of construction funds, as follows: $500,000 for 
     the Rutherford B. Hayes Home; $600,000 for Sotterly 
     Plantation House; $500,000 for Darwin Martin House in 
     Buffalo, New York and $500,000 for Penn Center, South 
     Carolina.
       Earmark of $1 million for the Vietnam Veterans Museum in 
     Chicago, to be derived from the Historic Preservation Fund.
       Earmark of $3 million for the Hispanic Cultural Center in 
     New Mexico (subject to authorization).
       Prohibition on funding relocation of the Brooks River Lodge 
     in Katmai National Park and Preserve from its current 
     location.
       Sec. 115--Directed conveyance of the Bowden National Fish 
     Hatchery in Randolph County, without reimbursement, to the 
     State of West Virginia for its fish culture program.
       Sec. 135--Adds new section directing National Park Service 
     to provide land in D.C. to the Corrections Corporation of 
     America in exchange for land in Prince Georges County, 
     Maryland.
       Sec. 133--Directs conveyance of BLM lands to Lander County, 
     Nevada, without compensation.
       Sec. 136--Directs Army to provide, without compensation, 
     two 6x6 vehicles, ``in excellent operating condition'', to 
     the University of Alaska Fairbanks and to construct a bridge 
     across the Bull River to the Golden Zone Mine Site to allow 
     access by the School of Mineral Engineering of the University 
     of Alaska Fairbanks.
       Earmark of $800,000 for the World Forestry Center for 
     continuing scientific research on land exchange efforts in 
     the Umpqua River Basin region.
       Sec. 307--Buy America restrictions.
       Sec. 313--Prohibition on expending funds to demolish the 
     bridge between Ellis Island and Jersey City, New Jersey.
       Sec. 343--Prohibits recreational residence special use 
     permit fee increases in Sawtooth National Forest prior to 
     January 1, 1999.
       Title V--Earmarks $337 million of $699 million provided for 
     land acquisitions and exchanges for four specific projects, 
     and eliminates specific criteria for determining priority 
     land acquisitions and exchanges as added by Senate.

                            Report Language

       [NOTE: Statement of managers language endorses all Senate 
     or House report language that is not specifically addressed 
     in the conference report. Therefore, following list of 
     objectionable items is not all-inclusive; other items in 
     either the House or Senate reports are considered direction 
     of the conferees.]

         Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management

       Management of Lands and Resources: $100,000 for the Alaska 
     Gold Rush Centennial; $500,000 for DoD mapping project in 
     Alaska; $200,000 for the Virgin River Basin Recovery plan; 
     $500,000 for recreation resources management; $2.1 million 
     for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; $700,000 for 
     the Alaska resources library; $2.3 million for the Alaska 
     conveyance; $1 million for the ALMRS; $200,000 for the Lewis 
     and Clark Trail; $100,000 for the Iditarod National Historic 
     Trail; $100,000 for the De Anza, California, Mormon Pioneer, 
     Nez Perce, Oregon and

[[Page S11273]]

     Pony Express National Historic Trails and the Pacific Crest 
     and Continental Divide; and National Scenic Trails.
       Wildland Fire Management: $700,000 to fund a type I hot-
     shot crew in Alaska; and $1.925 million for redevelopment of 
     the obsolete fire center in Billings, MT.
       Land Acquisition: $11.2 million total. $800,000 less than 
     House. $2.6 million more than Senate. All but $3.75 million 
     earmarked. (Conference Report page 53.)

                       Fish and Wildlife Service

       Resource Management: $549.8 million ($3.8 million more than 
     House. $9.8 million more than Senate); $400,000 for the 
     Alabama sturgeon; $400,000 for the Preble's Meadow Jumping 
     Mouse; and $300,000 for a wolf reintroduction study in WA.
       $1 million in habitat conservation: $50,000 for the Middle 
     Rio Grande/Bosque program; $50,000 for Platte River studies; 
     $100,000 for a Cedar City ecological services office; 
     $750,000 for Washington salmon enhancement; $50,000 for the 
     Vermont partners program; $1 million for Salton Sea recovery 
     planning in California; $250,000 for migratory bird 
     management; and $500,000 for hatchery operations and 
     endangered species recovery.
       $750,000 for fish and wildlife management: $100,000 for 
     Yukon River monitoring; $300,000 for Atlantic Salmon 
     conservation; $50,000 for the regional park processing 
     center; $300,000 for whirling disease research; $200,000 for 
     the Caddo Lake Institute scholars program; $1 million for the 
     National Conservation Training Center of which $560,000 
     should be used for the Iron County habitat conservation plan.
       Construction: $45 million total. $4.7 million more than 
     House. $3 million more than Senate. All but $6.9 million 
     earmarked. Conference Report page 56.
       Land Acquisition: $62.6 million total. $9.6 more than 
     House. $5.4 million more than Senate. All but $11.5 million 
     earmarked. (Conference Report page 58.)

                         National Park Service

       Operation of the Park System: An increase of $100,000 for 
     the Northwest ecosystem office; An increase of $920,000 for 
     the Gettysburg NMP; $2 million for special needs parks; 
     $250,000 for structure stabilization at Dry Tortugas National 
     Park; $50,000 for the Lewis and Clark Trail office; $200,000 
     for technical assistance to the Lewis and Clark Trail. 
     $50,000 for the California and Pony Express trails; and 
     $50,000 for the North Country Trail.
       National Recreation and Preservation: $250,000 for the Lake 
     Champlain program; $150,000 for the Connecticut River 
     Conservation partnership; $100,000 for the Aleutian World War 
     II National Historic Area. $325,000 for the Delaware and 
     Lehigh Navigational Canal; $65,000 for the Lower Mississippi 
     Delta; $285,000 for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve; 
     and $300,000 for the Wheeling National Heritage Area.
       Construction: $215 million total. $66.7 million more than 
     the House; $41.6 million more than the Senate. All but $58.3 
     million earmarked. (Conference Report page 64.)
       Land Acquisition: $143 million total. $14 million more than 
     the House. $16.4 million more than the Senate. All but $5.5 
     million earmarked. (Conference Report page 67.)

                    United States Geological Survey

       Surveys, Investigations, and Research: $3 million for the 
     global seismographic network; $1 million for the volcano 
     hazards study in Alaska and Hawaii; $2 million for the Alaska 
     minerals at risk project; $500,000 for Great Lakes Research; 
     and $2 million for an Alaska mineral and geological data 
     base.

               Department of Agriculture--Forest Service

       Forest and Rangeland Research: $700,000 for the Rocky 
     Mountain station forest health project; $450,000 for the 
     Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry in Hawaii; $500,000 for 
     the fine hardwoods tree improvement project at Purdue 
     University in Indiana; $1.5 million additional funding for 
     research at the Pacific Northwest station; and $300,000 for 
     the Rocky Mountain Research Station.
       State and Private Forestry: $500,000 for the Alaska Spruce 
     Bark Beetle task force; $2 million for stewardship 
     incentives; and $2 million for the Mountains to Sound 
     Greenway project in Washington State.
       International Forestry: $230,000 for the Institute of 
     Pacific Islands Forestry.
       National Forest System: $1 million for inventory and 
     monitoring; $500,000 for anadromous fish habitat management; 
     $2 million for grazing management; $100,000 for Alaska gold 
     rush centennial exhibits; $100,000 for trail maintenance in 
     the Pacific Northwest region; and $4 million for exotic and 
     noxious plant management.
       Reconstruction and Construction: $166 million total. $11.5 
     million more than the House. $10.4 million more than the 
     Senate. All but $88 million earmarked. (Conference Report 
     page 82.)
       Land Acquisition: $53 million total. $8 million more than 
     the House. $4 million more than the Senate. All but $11.3 
     million earmarked. (Conference Report page 84.)

                          Department of energy

       Fossil Energy Research and Development: $650,000 for coal 
     research to complete a hospital waste project at the veterans 
     hospital in Lebanon, PA.
       $48.6 million for natural gas research: $45 million for 
     advanced turbine systems; $1 million for the gas to liquids 
     programs; $650,000 for technology development; $2 million for 
     fuel cell systems; $350,000 for oil technology; and $800,000 
     for cooperative research and development.
       Energy Conservation: $1.5 million for the home energy 
     rating system; $100,000 for advanced desiccant technology; 
     $500,000 for Energy Star; $100,000 for highly reflective 
     surfaces; $750,000 for codes and standards; $1 million for 
     the weatherization assistance program; and $250,000 for State 
     energy program grants.

                Department of Health and Human Services

       Indian Health Facilities: $100,000 for the Montezuma Health 
     Clinic in Utah; $40,000 for sanitation facilities; and 
     $588,000 for environmental health and support.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native culture and arts 
                              development

       Construction: $4 million for the Dulles extension of the 
     National Air and Space Museum; and $29 million just to begin 
     construction of the National Museum of the American Indian 
     Mall Museum.

  Mr. McCAIN. These are, I am sure, interesting projects, and important 
to the people who will be working on them. However, these earmarks--
like the hundreds of other earmarks too numerous to mention today--were 
added to this conference agreement without benefit of the normal, 
merit-based review process that would ensure that these are the highest 
priority uses for the funding provided in this bill. Absent that 
process, it is difficult to believe that there are not other more 
pressing needs for Federal funds than these projects.
  Mr. President, I want to stress that I have highlighted only those 
projects that I find objectionable in this $13.8 billion measure. 
Certainly, the funding provided in this bill is essential for the 
essential operations of the Department of the Interior and the other 
Federal agencies charged with preservation and management of our lands 
and natural resources. It also contains funding that is vitally 
important to our native American tribes, particularly for Indian 
education.
  One provision that I am pleased to see included in this conference 
agreement is the $800 million environmental fund authorized in title IV 
of the bill. This provision establishes a National Parks and 
Environmental Improvement Fund financed from oil lease revenue awarded 
to the Federal Government by the U.S. Supreme Court this year. Interest 
from the fund, estimated to be $50 million annually, will be used to 
finance high-priority capital improvement projects for national parks, 
provide grants to States for park planning and acquisition, and fund 
marine environmental research. Providing for these unmet capital needs 
will ensure that our most coveted natural resources are preserved and 
protected for future generations.
  I must say, however, that I am sorry that the conferees included in 
the language authorizing the Parks Improvement Fund a special setaside 
for the State of Louisiana for oil and gas drainage in the West Delta 
field. This provision was not included in the original Senate language, 
nor was any other special location-specific set-aside. I am 
disappointed that even this provision was marred by special-interest 
language.
  Mr. President, I intend to support this bill because it provides new 
authorities and much-needed funding for many programs. However, I will 
urge the President to consider exercising his line-item veto to 
eliminate the low-priority, unnecessary, and wasteful spending that the 
Congress has added to this bill without benefit of a merit-based, 
prioritization review process.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill.
  This conference report contains both authorization and appropriations 
for the all-important Headwaters Forest acquisition in northern 
California.
  Mr. President, California's ancient redwood forests are among our 
Nation's most valued treasures, which is why the battle to preserve 
them has reached a fever pitch in recent years.
  The Headwaters Forest, nearly 3,000 acres located in Humboldt County, 
is one of the last remaining ancient redwood groves still in private 
hands. The land is owned by the Pacific Lumber Co., which is owned by 
the Maxxam Corp.
  Over the past decade there have been over a dozen attempts to save 
this ancient redwood grove. All have failed.
  Five attempts at Federal legislation failed.
  Three attempts at State legislation failed.
  Three statewide bond measures to raise funds to acquire the redwoods 
were rejected by California voters.

[[Page S11274]]

  Two State legislative measures to reform California forestry 
regulations, one that would have restricted logging on private lands, 
and another that some said was not restrictive enough, both failed.
  With the background, last year I was asked to see if I could 
facilitate an agreement between the property owner and the State and 
Federal Governments. After more than 100 hours of intense negotiations, 
an agreement was reached for the State of California and the Federal 
Government to jointly purchase the Headwaters Forest from Pacific 
Lumber Co.
  Under the Headwaters agreement, the governments will purchase the 
3,000-acre Headwaters Forest and the 425-acre Elkhead Springs Grove, 
plus nearly 4,000 additional acres of adjacent land to serve as a 
buffer. In all, approximately 7,500 acres would be acquired and 
protected.
  The price under the Headwaters agreement is $380 million, of which 
the Federal Government will contribute $250 million and the State will 
contribute $130 million.
  Without the Federal funding to complete this agreement, there is no 
agreement. And if there is no agreement, the Pacific Lumber Co. will 
proceed with its huge taking lawsuit against the Federal Government for 
the cost of any regulations that prevent the company from logging its 
old growth redwoods. In the end, the real losers will be the American 
taxpayers who will possibly pay even more if Pacific Lumber wins its 
taking lawsuit. That is why this conference report is so important. It 
provides the $250 million federal share for Headwaters.
  Specifically, this Headwaters package includes: Appropriation of $250 
million for the Federal purchase of the Headwaters Forest; 
appropriation of $10 million for a payment to Humboldt County, CA; and 
a prohibition on the expenditure of $250 million for 180 days from date 
of enactment.
  This will allow a period of time for the authorizing committees to 
review the issues associated with the Headwaters transaction and 
recommend any changes in the authorization if necessary. The funding 
will be available at the end of the 180 days.
  The conference report also provides an authorization to purchase the 
Headwaters Forest. While many believe the Department of the Interior 
has more than sufficient authority to acquire the property, I know that 
others disagree and have insisted on authorizing legislation. The 
authorization is contained in this conference report.
  Specifically, this bill authorizes the Headwaters acquisition with 
the following conditions: The State of California provides $130 million 
for its share of the costs, the State of California approves a 
sustained yield plan for the Pacific Lumber Co. property, a habitat 
conservation plan is approved and an incidental take permit is issued 
to Pacific Lumber, an appraisal of the lands to be acquired is done and 
reviewed by the Comptroller General, Pacific Lumber Co. dismisses its 
lawsuit against the Federal Government, a report is made to Congress on 
applicable HCP standards, Humboldt County is eligible for payment in 
lieu of taxes [PILT] payments for Federal lands acquired, 50 percent of 
management costs in excess of $100,000 will come from non-Federal 
sources, development of a management plan, with consideration of 
management by a trust, and expiration of the authorization on March 1, 
1999.
  If asked, is this authorization exactly what I would have drafted, 
the answer is no. But it gets the job done. And that is what is 
important.
  I firmly believe that the Headwaters agreement is our last best hope 
to preserve these magnificent ancient redwoods. I urge my colleagues to 
approve this conference report.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for their 
work on the conference report on the Interior appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1998.
  There are a few provisions of this bill that do not relate to matters 
of appropriations which would be more properly addressed by the 
authorizing committees of the Senate, and thus, I feel compelled to 
register concern that measures that are clearly substantive in nature--
such as a comprehensive settlement of the claims of the Miccosukee 
Tribe of Florida--do not belong in this or any other appropriations 
bill.
  I raise this matter because in last year's Omnibus Appropriations 
Act, there was a provision that singled out one Indian tribal 
government for disparate treatment--namely, to strip that tribe of 
benefits and privileges that have been authorized for all other tribes 
in the country under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I speak of the 
provision affecting the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island.
  Last year's provision came before this body over the strenuous and 
adamant objections of the Narragansett Tribe, without the benefit of 
any hearings, in the absence of any record that would serve to justify 
this unusual action on the part of the Congress, and with no 
consultation with the affected tribe.
  The Narraganset Indian Tribe advises us that this provision has 
forever changed the lives of the members of that tribe, and has wrought 
devastating effects on the potential for the development and growth of 
the tribal economy.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the day when the Congress acts to 
rectify the effects of last year's appropriations bill as it relates to 
the Narragansett Tribe.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote in favor of the 
Conference Report making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies, but I do so with some reservations. I 
commend the appropriations conferees for negotiating a multitude of 
very contentious issues, but I am particularly concerned with several 
anti-environmental provisions that remain in the report.
  The Balanced Budget agreement provided $700 million above the 
President's request for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and I am 
very pleased that the appropriators were able to honor that agreement. 
Land and water conservation funds and the matching State grant program 
have been very important to Connecticut's ability to acquire land and 
enhance recreation areas and parks. Without this funding, local 
communities will continue without the assistance they so deserve to 
acquire open space and further develop recreational areas. 
Unfortunately, Senate language providing $100 million in grants to 
States for land acquisition was not included in the conference report.
  A portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be used to 
purchase the Headwaters region in California and the New World Mine in 
Montana, subject to authorizing conditions. Although I recognize that 
the State of Montana will feel some adverse economic repercussion from 
the New World Mine purchase, I am dismayed that a proposal of $10 
million to the State of Montana could be counted against the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  When the Senate initially debated the Interior appropriations bill, I 
was pleased to join many of my colleagues in voting for an amendment to 
eliminate funding for timber road purchaser credits for timber sales, 
but the amendment failed by the narrowest of margins. There is growing 
support for the elimination of all taxpayer subsidies for Forest 
Service logging road construction, and the House included language 
restricting the amount of timber purchaser credits. Unfortunately, the 
conferees dropped the House provision.
  Finally, the provision reducing the effectiveness of the law 
pertaining to the export of Federal timber benefits a few large timber 
companies in the West. It was never suitably discussed by the 
authorizing committee.
  While these are a few of my concerns, there are many provisions in 
the bill which merit my support. The Silvio Conte refuge and the 
Stewart McKinney refuge in my State received much-needed funding for 
land acquisition. Congress authorized the expansion of the McKinney 
refuge in 1990, and in the ensuing years, Federal appropriations have 
enabled the refuge to acquire 413 of the 454 acres available. Because 
the budget for the National Park Service was sufficiently funded, Weir 
Farm, the only national park in Connecticut, should receive an increase 
in its operating budget to meet its rising visitor service demands.
  Mr. President, as you know, I am a strong backer of the arts and I am 
pleased that the appropriators provided

[[Page S11275]]

$98 million for the National Endowment of the Arts. The NEA was a 
marked agency, identified by the other body for elimination. In fact, 
the other body voted to zero out all funding and tried to extinguish 
the NEA. But together with my colleagues in the Senate, another round 
of efforts to dismantle or eliminate the NEA was stopped. When the bill 
came out of conference with the House, the NEA had been saved. As 
evidenced by a series of strong bipartisan votes in the Senate in favor 
of the NEA, my colleagues and I were able to save this national agency 
and preserve a Federal role for the arts.
  During the Senate debate over NEA funding, I cosponsored with the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens from Alaska, 
a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution asking the Congress to examine 
alternative sources of funding for the NEA. I believe it is time to 
give the NEA a secure future and preserve a national cultural endowment 
for generations to come. My hope is that the Congress will address this 
issue in the future.
  And so it is for these reasons that I support the Interior 
appropriations conference report. I commend the conferees on a job well 
done.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Specter] is necessarily absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

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

                                NAYS--14

     Ashcroft
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Helms
     Kohl
     Moseley-Braun
     Roth
     Smith (NH)
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Specter
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. McCain. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________