[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9958-S9963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask 
the Chair to lay before the Senate Calendar No. 440, S. 2237, the 
fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Evans, Ginny James, 
Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Kevin Johnson, Kurt Dodd, and Carole 
Geagley of the Appropriations Committee staff; Chuck Berwick and Kari 
Vander Stoep of my personal staff; and Hank Kashdan, Mary Ellen 
Mueller, and Craig Leff, detailees with the Appropriations Committee, 
be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 2237.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to bring before the 
Senate the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 1999. The bill provides $13.4 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for agencies and programs under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, an increase of $265 million above the FY 98 freeze level, 
but $660 million less than the President's budget request.
  As always, putting this bill together has been a great challenge. The 
subcommittee received more than 2,000 individual requests from Senators 
regarding particular projects or programs, the majority of which were 
requests for additions to the President's budget request, which I have 
already mentioned is well in excess of the amounts available to the 
Subcommittee. While Senator Stevens has been as generous with the 
Interior Subcommittee as I could reasonably expect him to be given the 
constraints of the discretionary spending caps, the subcommittee's 
allocation is such that the FY 1999 bill in large part continues 
programs at or near the current year level. There are significant, but 
modest, increases for a handful of high priority programs, but for the 
most part there are few surprises or dramatic new funding initiatives.
  As Members consider whether particular programs in this bill have 
been treated fairly within the constraints of the subcommittee's 
allocation, I hope they will consider two factors. First, for the first 
time since Fiscal Year 1995, this bill does not mandate a sale of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for the costs of operating 
the reserve. An oil sale at current price levels would be unwise to say 
the least. But the fact that this bill does not include an oil sale 
means that the Subcommittee had to find $155 million for operation of 
the Reserve that was not included in last year's base. As a 
consequence, the increase in the Subcommittee's allocation is 
effectively only $110 million above the freeze level.
  The second factor of which I want my colleagues to be aware when 
evaluating this bill is the impact of increases in Federal pay, 
benefits and other fixed costs. The Interior bill as a whole is one of 
the most personnel-intensive of the appropriations bills, supporting 
tens of thousands of park rangers, foresters, Indian health 
professionals and other Federal workers. Each year the agencies funded 
in this bill must accommodate increases in pay and benefits for these 
workers, and similar cost increases over which the Subcommittee has no 
direct control. In FY 1999, these ``uncontrollable costs'' will amount 
to more than $200 million.
  Lest any of my colleagues feel these costs are attributable to a 
bloated bureaucracy, I note that Department of the Interior staffing in 
Washington, D.C. is 17% below its 1993 base--despite a significant 
expansion since that time in the number of parks, refuges, and other 
Interior programs, most of which have been authorized by Congress. This 
17% reduction is the second greatest among all civilian cabinet 
agencies. While the Subcommittee continues to seek efficiencies and to 
terminate wasteful programs, yearly increases in pay and related costs 
for core Federal employees continue to consume most or all of any 
increases that the Subcommittee may receive in its allocation.
  Having noted two of the major factors impacting funding levels in 
this year's bill, I want to highlight some priority programs where we 
were able to provide modest--but significant--increases. The bill 
includes a $55 million increase for operation of the national park 
system, including increases over the current year level of $18 million 
for park maintenance, $15 million for special need parks, and $10 
million for an

[[Page S9959]]

across-the-board increase in park operations. These increases will 
benefit all parks, but particularly those units with severe operational 
shortfalls and critical deficiencies in maintenance funding. The bill 
also provides a $10.6 million increase in refuge operations and 
maintenance, which follows a $41 million increase provided in last 
year's bill.
  For the Forest Service, this bill places a heavy emphasis on 
improving accountability within the agency. A number of General 
Accounting Office reports and various Congressional hearings have 
clearly demonstrated that the Forest Service lacks the fundamental 
ability to account for its expenditures, and has shown a growing level 
of overhead and indirect expenses that corresponds with a decline in 
on-the-ground accomplishment. I am disturbed by these problems, but at 
the same time am wary of overreacting by mandating controls that may be 
counterproductive. I do see indications that the agency is determined 
to address its accountability problem.
  With these considerations in mind, I have included language in the 
bill to require increased accountability by eliminating the general 
administration line item, and requiring the Forest Service to display 
clearly the source of funds that go to overhead and other indirect 
expenses. We have also consolidated three budget line items, where 
maintenance functions are performed along with other work, into two 
distinct line items where only maintenance, reconstruction and 
construction activities occur. I hope that actions such as this, along 
with commitment from top Forest Service officials, will help the agency 
to institute proper management controls and clean up its accountability 
mess.
  The other major Forest Service initiative in this bill deals with the 
amount of timber the Forest Service will be expected to offer for sale. 
In 1990, the Forest Service offered for sale approximately 11 billion 
board feet of timber. In fiscal year 1999, the Administration proposes 
to offer only 3.4 billion board feet. That's a 69% reduction. Many of 
my colleagues know first hand the devastating effect that this reduced 
timber program has had on timber dependent communities. With timber 
growth rates far in excess of 10 billion board feet per year, it is 
unconscionable that the administration proposes a timber offer level of 
less than one-third of that amount. Accordingly, the Committee has 
provided additional funding, and expects the Forest Service to sell 
approximately 3.6 billion board feet of timber in fiscal year 1999. 
This amount is 200 million board feet more than proposed by the 
administration, but about 200 million board feet less than the fiscal 
year 1998 level. I also want to note that this 3.6 billion board feet 
figure is a correction of the 3.784 billion board feet figure 
incorrectly included in the Committee report.
  The bill also includes $10 million for the administration's 
Millennium initiative for historic preservation projects of national 
importance. Due to the constraints of the Subcommittee's allocation and 
a general aversion to beginning new programs, I had not intended to 
provide funds for the Millennium program. But I found the Millennium 
program's primary advocate --the First Lady--to be very persuasive when 
she called me at the urging of Senator Bumpers. I look forward to 
working with her to define better how these funds might be used. To 
balance the increase provided for historic preservation projects on a 
national level, the bill also includes a 20 percent $6 million increase 
for the existing grants-to-States program in the Historic Preservation 
Fund account.
  The bill also includes funds for a number of specific historic 
preservation projects, including $3 million for the Smithsonian 
Institution for rehabilitation of the Star Spangled Banner. This 
appropriation will complement non-federal funds that have been pledged 
for this project by the Pew Charitable Trusts, and most recently by 
Ralph Lauren. The bill also provides funds to continue construction of 
the National Museum of the American Indian on the Mall, and to continue 
renovation of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

  For the agency that receives perhaps more attention than any other in 
this bill--the National Endowment for the Arts--the bill provides just 
over $100 million. This is precisely the same funding level as was 
approved by the Senate last year, but a slight increase over the final 
appropriation. I also note that the bill continues the several reforms 
that were agreed to during deliberations on the fiscal year 1998 bill, 
including restrictions on individual grants, subgrants, and seasonal 
support; limitations on total grants to any one State, and increased 
emphasis on arts education and programs for under served populations. 
With the House having voted by a substantial margin to provide level 
funding for the NEA, the gap to be bridged in conference will be far 
narrower than it was last year. The National Endowment for the 
Humanities is funded at $110.7 million in the Senate bill, the same as 
the fiscal year 1998 level.
  For the Indian Programs that comprise approximately 30 percent of the 
Interior bill, the biggest challenge for the Committee was to attempt 
to fill the gaping hole left by the administration's budget request for 
the Indian Health Service. Facing the challenges of a deteriorating 
infrastructure, increasing service population growth, and a relatively 
high rate of inflation in the medical services sector, the Indian 
Health Service was nevertheless the only major Interior bill agency 
that did not share in the bounty of the administration's inflated 
budget request.
  The Committee has provided a $53 million increase for the Indian 
Health Service, $34 million more than the budget request. This includes 
more than $16 million to staff newly completed health facilities--an 
item for which the administration inexplicably did not request funding. 
The amount provided also includes funds to cover a modest portion of 
IHS's fixed cost increases, which the administration also did not 
include in its budget.
  To some extent the increase provided for the Indian Health Service 
comes at the expense of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although the bill 
does provide a $15 million increase for the Operation of Indian 
Programs account, the overall BIA budget is essentially flat. But even 
if the resources available to the Subcommittee were less constrained, I 
think it would be imprudent to provide a significant increase for the 
largest of BIA programs--Tribal Priority Allocations--until we develop 
a more rational means of allocating TPA funds. As it stands, some $757 
million in TPA funds are distributed in a manner that ignores the 
relative financial health and needs of the recipient Tribes.
  Though its history is difficult to trace, the current allocation 
system seems to have been developed piecemeal over a period of decades 
through a combination of departmental, tribal and congressional 
actions. Each of these individual actions may have made perfect sense 
at the time at which it was taken. But their cumulative effect has been 
to create a system in which a number of quite wealthy tribes receive 
far greater per capita TPA allocations than some of the most destitute 
tribes. While I cannot imagine that such a system would ever be seen as 
appropriate, it is almost offensive in a time when Federal 
appropriations are severely constrained by balanced budget 
requirements, and when a number of tribes are profiting quite 
handsomely from business ventures such as gaming.
  The bill before the Senate attempts to address this inequity by 
mandating that the BIA identify the top 10 percent of tribes in terms 
of per capita tribal revenue, and directing the BIA to distribute half 
of the TPA payments that would have gone to those tribes to the 20 
percent of tribes with the lowest per capita tribal revenue. The bill 
also directs BIA to develop possible formulas for the future 
distribution of TPA funds, and gives the Bureau authority to collect 
the information required to develop such formulas.
  I recognize, that this is not a perfect solution. Many have expressed 
concerns about the manner in which funds are proposed for distribution 
in FY 1999, the extent to which BIA should be authorized to collect 
financial information from the tribes, and the degree to which tribes 
themselves should be involved in the reallocation process. But few, if 
any, have argued that the current distribution system is either just or 
a wise use of taxpayer dollars. I have had extensive discussions about 
this issue with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. Kevin 
Gover, as

[[Page S9960]]

well as with Senator Campbell, Senator Inouye and other interested 
colleagues. I am pleased that these discussions have resulted in 
alternative language that I believe will have widespread support and 
can be adopted as an amendment to this bill. The new language permits 
the wealthiest tribes to return voluntarily Tribal Priority Allocations 
to the BIA for redistribution to the neediest. However, the substitute 
language does not diminish the Federal Government's trust 
responsibilities or that tribe's ability to access future 
appropriations. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is directed 
to develop, within Congressionally mandated obligations, a new method 
for distributing TPA funds by April 1, 1999. Finally, the substitute 
language excludes from the redistribution plan payments made by the 
Federal Government in settlement of claims and judgments and income 
derived from lands, natural resources, or funds held in trust by the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. President, in this bill there are a number of other legislative 
provisions and limitations on the use of funds about which my 
colleagues may have heard. The administration and its advisors in the 
environmental community have evidently decided to attack these 
provisions en masse, arguing that they represent ``stealth'' or ``dark 
of night'' attacks on the environment by Republicans. This tells me 
three things. First, the administration is reluctant to argue any one 
of these issues on its merits. Second, the administration has not been 
paying attention in any of the dozens of Congressional hearings that 
have been held on these issues, the vast majority of which included 
administration witnesses. And third, the administration is either 
unaware of, or is choosing to ignore, the historic oversight role of 
the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  There are indeed several legislative provisions and limitations on 
the use of funds in this year's Interior bill. There are a few more 
such provisions than were in the Senate version of the bill last year, 
but fewer than in the final FY 1997 Act. Some of the provisions have 
been inserted at the request of fellow Republicans. Some, such as the 
mining patent moratorium and the moratoria on offshore oil and gas 
development, are included at the request of the administration or my 
Democratic colleagues. These provisions are inserted in appropriations 
bills for one of several reasons, Mr. President. Some are included to 
address critical health and safety issues that require immediate 
attention. The King Cove road provision falls into this category. Other 
provisions are included because they are an integral part of the 
Committee's fiscal oversight role. The provision regarding distribution 
of TPA funds falls into this category, as does a provision in the bill 
that provides for the orderly termination of the overpriced and out of 
control Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
  But perhaps the single most common reason that legislative provisions 
and limitations on the use of funds are included in this bill is the 
overzealous use of regulatory powers by the executive branch without 
the adequate involvement of Congress or the public. This is the dynamic 
that has prompted any number of such provisions, from the moratoria on 
offshore oil and gas development that are included in this bill year 
after year, to the provision in this year's bill that requires a 
comprehensive study of regulations governing mining on public lands. If 
it seems that there are more limitations on the use of funds in this 
bill than there have been in the past, it is very likely because this 
administration has made a conscious decision not to engage Congress in 
a constructive dialogue on a whole array of critically needed reforms 
to insensitive land management decisions, and has instead decided to 
press the top-down, Washington, D.C.-knows-best agenda of its extremist 
environmental allies through the use of Executive orders and over broad 
regulatory actions that in some cases are downright insulting to me as 
a member of the legislative branch.
  In about every case, these riders have the support of all--or a vast 
majority of--the members of the House and Senate in the districts and 
States to which they apply. Generally speaking, Members of both bodies 
defer to judgment of the Members affected by regional policies and 
issues. This administration, however, constantly demands the right to 
override the views of Members immediately affected, and their 
constituents, with a constant and pervasive ``DC knows best'' attitude. 
In any debate over these issues, I ask my colleagues to listen with 
care and sympathy to the Members whose constituents lives are so often 
arrogantly ignored by unelected bureaucrats.
  If the administration or any Member of the Senate wishes to discuss 
or debate the merits of any individual provision in this bill, I am 
willing to do so. But I find it ludicrous--if not offensive--for the 
Administration simply to lump every provision it finds the least bit 
inconvenient onto one list of so-called ``objectionable riders,'' 
condemn the use of such provisions as some new and nefarious practice, 
and to demand that all such provisions be removed under threat of a 
veto. I fully anticipate some give and take with the administration as 
this bill moves through conference, but it is not the job of the Senate 
simply to approve administration requests for funding and trust that it 
will be spent wisely and in accordance with the intent of Congress. We 
have plenty of experience to the contrary, both with the current and 
previous administrations.
  Finally, I want to address an issue about which I am asked 
persistently, and that is the disposition of the $699 million `special' 
appropriation for land acquisition included in the FY 1998 bill. My 
colleagues may recall that $362 million of those funds remain to be 
allocated to specific projects. That allocation will be made by 
agreement of the House and Senate committees, and will be transmitted 
to the administration by letter. I have had several discussions with 
Chairman Regula about this issue, and hope that we--together with 
Senator Byrd and Congressman Yates--can agree on an allocation of at 
least half of these funds in the very near future. I unfortunately 
cannot now say exactly when this allocation will be finalized, but I am 
confident that it will be soon, and that we will do our best to balance 
the priorities of the Senate, the House and the administration.
  On a personal level, I want to say one final thank you--for the 
record--to Sue Masica, who has for years been Senator Byrd's clerk for 
the Interior Subcommittee. Sue has been a tremendous resource for me 
and my staff, and I can say with great confidence has also been of 
assistance at one time or another to just about every Member in this 
Chamber, whether that Member knew it or not. Sue is now the Associate 
Director of Administration for the National Park Service, a position in 
which I know she will excel. I wish her the very best. I also want to 
recognize Sue's replacement--Kurt Dodd--and welcome him to the 
Committee staff.
  On my personal staff, I thank Chuck Berwick, Kari Vander Stoep, and 
Todd Young for their many contributions to this bill. I also thank 
Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Hank Kashdan, Leif 
Fonnesbeck, Kevin Johnson, and our detailee Mary Ellen Mueller for 
their hard work and long hours spent on this bill. I also thank Carole 
Geagley and Craig Leff of Senator Byrd's staff, and Steve Cortese, Jim 
English and Jay Kimmitt of the full committee staff for their many 
courtesies and willing assistance given to me and my staff.
  With that, I look forward to hearing from my friend and colleague, 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of 
Interior and Related Agencies. I speak in support of the fiscal year 
1999 interior appropriations bill. This is an important bill which 
provides for the management of our Nation's natural resources and funds 
research critical to our energy future. It supports the well-being of 
our Indian populations and protects the historical and cultural 
heritage of our country. I hope the Senate will move swiftly through 
the bill.
  It has been my privilege, Mr. President, to serve as the Ranking 
Member for this bill at the side of our very able Chairman, the senior 
Senator from Washington. Senator Gorton has done

[[Page S9961]]

an outstanding job in crafting the bill and balancing its many 
competing interests, and crafting the Interior bill is not an easy 
task. The Interior bill remains one of the most popular appropriation 
bills, funding a diverse set of very worthy programs and projects. The 
bill is full of thousands of relatively small, yet very meaningful 
details. Our Chairman is a master of the complexities of the bill, and 
it is a pleasure to work on this appropriations bill with Senator 
Gorton. He has treated Senators fairly and openly. This bill was put 
together in a bipartisan manner, and it reflects priorities identified 
by many Senators, by the public, and by the agencies that are charged 
with carrying out the programs and projects funded in the bill.
  The breadth of the activities covered by the Interior bill is vast--
ranging from museums to parks to hospitals to resources to research--
with most of the funds being spent far away from the Capitol and far 
away from Washington. This bill funds hundreds of national parks, 
wildlife refuges, national forests, and other land management units. 
The bill supports more than 400 Indian hospitals and clinics and 
thousands of Indian students. A wide variety of natural science and 
energy research and technology development is funded through this bill, 
providing immediate and far-reaching benefits to all parts of our 
country and to our society as a whole.
  This bill makes its presence known in every State--from the rocky 
coasts of Maine to the mountains of California, from the coral reefs of 
Florida to the farflung island territories of the Pacific, from the 
Aleutian Islands in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. And 
the number of requests that Senator Gorton and I have received from 
Senators for project funding in the Interior bill numbers more than 
1,400--1,400 requests for specific items. This reflects its broad 
impact. While it is impossible to include every request, Senator Gorton 
has done an admirable job of accommodating high-priority items within 
the allocation, an allocation that is $660 million below the 
President's budget request and $290 million below last year's enacted 
level in new spending authority. Since the bill is at its allocation, 
any additional funding sought by Senators will need to be offset.
  Mr. President, highlights of this bill include:
  A total of $233 million for land acquisition, which is $37 million 
below the President's request and $38 million below the level of 
funding included in title I and title II of last year's bill for land 
acquisition.
  A continuing emphasis on operating and protecting our national parks. 
Park operation funds are increased by $55 million, including $15 
million targeted for the special operations initiative, $10 million for 
an across-the-board increase for all parks, and $14 million for 
maintenance.
  A total of $10 million for the President's Millennium initiative, 
``Save America's Treasures.'' In addition, specific funding for 
critical historical and cultural resources is contained in the normal 
funding categories--items such as restoration of the Star Spangled 
Banner at the Smithsonian Institution, presevation of Independence 
National Historical Park in Philadelphia, protection of buildings at 
the Edison National Historic Site, and stabilization and protection of 
the Longfellow National Historic Site.
  A continuing focus on the maintenance backlog needs of the land 
management agencies. Specific increases include: +$6 million for BLM 
facilities maintenance; +$10 million for FWS refuge operations and 
maintenance; +$18 million for NPS maintenance; and +$13 million for 
Forest Service road maintenance.
  A total of $155 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, allowing 
operation of the reserve without selling any of its oil.
  An increase of $45 million above the President's request for the 
Indian Health Services program to help cover fixed costs. The 
administration's budget gave no consideration to these needs for IHS.
  A net increase of $35 million for energy conservation programs--
including increases for weatherization assistance, the building 
equipment and materials program, the industry sector programs, and the 
transportation programs.
  Mr. President, while this bill provides needed resources for 
protecting some of our Nation's most valuable treasures, we still have 
a long way to go. The agencies funded through this bill are starting to 
make progress towards addressing their backlog maintenance issues, 
thanks in great measure to the leadership of the Congress, the 
expansion of private-public partnerships, and the development of 
innovative user fees.
  But we are by no means out of the woods. Many deplorable conditions 
remain; many important resource and research needs are unmet. We must 
continue our vigilance towards unnecessary new initiatives as well as 
unwise decreases, our support for the basic programs that provide the 
foundation of the Interior bill, and our careful stewardship of the 
resources and assets placed in our trust.
  Mr. President, the chairman and manager of the bill has already 
stated for the record many of the salient points that are covered in 
the bill, many of the items, many of the programs and projects. There 
is no need for my repeating them here.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I extend a warm word of appreciation to the 
staff that have assisted the chairman and myself in our work on this 
bill. They work as a team and serve both of us, as well as all 
Senators, in a very effective and dedicated manner. On the majority 
side, the staff members are Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, 
Leif Fonnesbeck, Mary Ellen Mueller, and Kevin Johnson. On my staff, 
Sue Masica, Kurt Dodd, Craig Leff, and Carole Geagley have worked on 
the Interior bill this year. This team works under the tutelage of the 
staff directors of the full committee--Steve Cortese for the majority 
and Jim English for the minority.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to share my deep appreciation for 
the wonderful words that members of the subcommittee and full committee 
have spoken about Sue Masica, the minority clerk for the bill, who 
recently accepted a position with the National Park Service. Sue was 
the best of the best. She will be sorely missed by myself and by the 
other Senators. Her dedication, acumen, and team spirit epitomize the 
Senate and the appropriations process.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill, and I urge the Senate to complete 
its action promptly. And I urge all Senators to support the bill in its 
final passage.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3541

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for Mr. Jeffords 
     and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 3541.

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

       ``Sec.  . Up to $10 million of funds available in fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999 shall be available for matching grants, 
     not covering more than 50 percent of the total cost of any 
     acquisition to be made with such funds, to States and local 
     communities for purposes of acquiring lands or interests in 
     lands to preserve and protect Civil War battlefield sites 
     identified in the July 1993 Report on the Nation's Civil War 
     Battlefields prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory 
     Commission. Lands or interests in lands acquired pursuant to 
     this section shall be subject to the requirements of 
     paragraph 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)).''

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last year about this time during the 
debate on this bill, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, and 
the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, proposed an amendment to 
earmark certain amounts of money for the preservation and protection of 
Civil War battlefield sites. At that point, while as a Civil War buff I 
greatly sympathize with them, we didn't know where the earmark would 
come from. It is now possible in this bill to meet the most worthy 
goals of that pair of bipartisan Senators.
  This amendment earmarks up to $10 million of both fiscal year 1998 
and 1999 money--$10 million total--for matching grants for up to 50 
percent of the total cost of any such acquisition with

[[Page S9962]]

States and local communities and private entities based on a July 1993 
report of the Nation's Civil War battlefields prepared by the Civil War 
Sites Advisory Commission. So it means that there will be more leverage 
for the acquisition of various Civil War battle sites, mostly, I think, 
on secondary battles.
  It is a highly worthy proposal. I very much favor it. At the same 
time, the majority leader, feeling that the Senate absolutely needs to 
do its business, and because as is usual and customary, unfortunately, 
at the beginning of debate over appropriations bills, we don't get 
people down here to offer their amendments, he has asked me to move to 
table the amendment and to take a vote on that. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the moment, one of the sponsors being 
here, I withdraw the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Motion withdrawn.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and 
against the motion to table. This amendment was worked on by many of us 
who sincerely believe that the future of this Nation must rely, to a 
certain extent, on our good understanding of the past and of history 
and of the battles that this Nation fought in its infancy--basically, 
the Civil War battlefields.
  As we approach the next millennium, many of these battlefields are 
very critical in understanding the history of the Civil War. And in 
understanding the sacrifices made by so many Americans, Senator 
Torricelli, myself and others, with the great cooperation of the 
Senator from Washington, worked out a plan where we could raise a 
sufficient amount of money to really work with States and local 
governments to be able to take care of and preserve those battlefields 
that are so important in understanding the history of the Civil War.
  So I have opposed the motion to table and support very strongly the 
underlying amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 3541. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Kempthorne), and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Santorum) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-
Braun), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 83, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                NAYS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Biden
     Chafee
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Santorum
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3541) was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as I said, this was in the nature of a 
vote that was appropriate for a Tuesday afternoon. I am very much in 
favor of this amendment. I do not believe there is any further debate 
on the amendment. I trust the President will put the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3541) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that we may 
be able to deal with soon, none of which will be particularly 
controversial. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, does have a 
different subject to which he would like to speak shortly. I intend to 
defer to him on that.
  But the important message to all of our colleagues, the message in 
effect given by this last vote, is this is an important appropriations 
bill. It is, in fact, controversial. We have a list of perhaps 60 
amendments that are likely to come up on it at one point or another. 
Members should, I hope, be prepared to come to the floor of the Senate 
with those amendments and have them considered in an orderly fashion 
under which there is a reasonable amount of time for debate rather than 
to crowd them up against the end of the debate on this bill.
  It may very well be that later on in the afternoon we will have an 
amendment on this bill on an entirely different and very controversial 
subject, which will then essentially take us off of the Interior bill. 
Before that takes place, however, the managers of the bill would be 
very pleased to deal with amendments that relate to the bill itself. I 
ask Members to come to the floor with those amendments.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thompson pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2445 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I hope within a few minutes to have a few 
corrective amendments to offer to the bill, but seeing no one with an 
amendment on the floor at the present time, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have spoken to the subcommittee Chair 
who is managing the appropriations bill that is now on the floor and 
have asked him if it is all right if I speak in morning business for a 
few minutes. If someone comes to the floor with an amendment on this 
bill, if he will signal to

[[Page S9963]]

me, I will certainly discontinue so he may continue making progress on 
the bill.
  I want to speak about the agriculture crisis briefly, and I ask 
unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________