T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, legislation was recently introduced in the House of Representatives that would ban all commercial logging on Federal lands. This legislation would be devastating not only for the Pacific Northwest, which is highly dependent on its forest products industries, but disastrous for the entire Nation as well. I'm appalled. Let me state that the bill introduced by Representatives McKinney, Leach, McDermott, and others has absolutely no chance of passage. None. Yet, it's another confirmation of the radical nature of our opponents in this debate about managing our national resources. After years of talking about compromise and balance, it's clear by the introduction of this bill that their view is that one of our greatest renewable natural resources shouldn't be used for any constructive economic purpose. The sponsors of this bill are clearly indifferent to human costs and economic disruption this radical policy would impose on our Nation's economy, and particularly on our timber dependent communities. Support for this bill--which I repeat, has no chance of passage-- comes from the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations that earlier this year endorsed a policy of zero cut of timber on public lands. More recently, during debate on the Interior appropriations bill, many of these same groups supported an amendment substantially reducing the budget for Forest Service roads. Had these groups succeeded, the Federal Timber Sale Program, which already has been reduced by two-thirds over the past decade, would have been reduced by another 50 percent. This was clearly a tactic employed by radical environmental groups with the ultimate goal of eliminating all Federal timber harvests. Proponents of a zero cut policy on Federal lands lead an effort to further erode the economic backbone of rural Americans. It is an effort by mostly urban environmentalists--armchair environmentalists--who have forgotten, or who never knew, what it takes to produce fiber and shelter, and are indifferent to the communities and jobs that produce these commodities. Published reports about this legislation fail to mention that Federal timber sales are already in severe decline, primarily from the limitations placed on the Forest Service by the Clinton administration's environmental considerations and species protection efforts. In 1987, the Federal Timber Sale Program provided nearly 12 billion board feet of timber. Now, 10 years later, less than 4 billion board feet were sold. This translates to double-digit unemployment in Washington State's timber dependent communities. I cannot imagine how terrible it would be for these already depressed communities if timber harvests were banned on public lands. For the record, I would like to note that 23 of Washington's 39 counties have been designated as ``distressed'' counties under State guidelines, meaning that their unemployment rates have been 20 percent above the State average for 3 years and median household incomes less than 75 percent of the State median. This is, to a great extent, the direct result of economic devastation in our timber dependent communities. These are counties with towns like Port Angeles. A pulp mill closure in February resulted in about $17 million in direct payroll losses and hundreds of jobs. As I speak today, representatives from the Port Angeles community are hosting a summit for similarly distressed communities that are finding it hard to survive in an era of declining timber sales. These areas of the State do not share the wealth of the booming Seattle economy. In 1996, 75 percent of the timber sold by the U.S. Forest Service was to small businesses. These small operations are predominately headquartered in rural areas; in places such as Forks, WA, where jobs and the community's stability are dependent upon the timber industry. These are communities struggling under existing environmental restrictions and species protection efforts. The recent House proposal would serve as a death blow to these struggling communities. Proponents of the zero-cut scheme also erroneously claim it will benefit the Federal Treasury. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the fact that annual timber sale revenues dropped by over $462 million due to logging restrictions, the Forest Service Federal Timber Sale Program generates annual net revenues of $59 million to the U.S. Treasury. In addition, due to declining timber harvests, imports of softwood lumber between 1992 and 1995 increased by 4 billion board feet. As a result, the average price of an 1,800 square foot new home has gone up $2,000. The environmentalists don't like to talk about the inflationary results of their anti-timber campaigns--where is their righteous indignation when working Americans and families find it increasingly difficult to put a roof over their heads? What is most disappointing in this debate is that news articles and extreme environmental organizations fail to mention the greatest loser if such a proposal was ever enacted: our public education system. Some 25 percent of the revenue from Federal timber sales goes directly to counties to be used for roads and schools. These counties rely on these Federal revenues. In addition to providing essential local services as schools and roads, these counties also provide direct and indirect services to national forests, national parks, wilderness areas, fish and wildlife refuges, and reclamation areas. Without some timber harvests in these financially-strapped counties, the public education of our children will suffer. The argument that the only good harvest is no harvest at all overlooks the fact that up to 10,000 acres of Federal timber lands fall victim to forest fires every year. This does not even take into account the insect and disease outbreaks which ravage thousands of acres of public lands. In 1994, devastating wildfires ravaged forests in Washington State. The fires were fueled by the excessive buildup on the forest floor. The forest floor was composed of dead, dying, insect infested, and diseased timber which had built up due to a lack of active management on Federal forest lands, including thinning and removal of insect-infested trees. The health of our forests will deteriorate under the status quo, as dead and dying trees are left untouched. Thinning, on the other hand will create a desired condition in which more trees will survive because of less competition for a limited amount of available moisture. By reducing natural fuel loads through thinning, removal of underbrush, and dead and dying trees, we will be creating a win-win situation in which our forests will be healthier and our mills will be stronger. I think it is also important to note that as I heap scorn on the proposed legislation in the House and its supporters, we are beginning to see a rejection of this extreme approach by dedicated environmentalists who live in timber-dependent communities. Unlike their counterparts in Washington DC, and other urban areas who are busy turning out fundraising letters, these true conservationists send their children to the local schools, see the devastating impact of these radical policies on the local economy, and fear for their lives, livelihood, and homes due to the severe wildfire threat. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it was encouraging to see the progress that is being made at the local level in northeastern California. There, local environmentalists, timber workers, and public officials have crafted a reasonable land management plan that resores balance to our forests known as the Quincy Library Group approach. Unlike this approach--a balanced, responsible approach to forest health and forest management--the zero-cut proposal introduced last week in the House does nothing more than carry out the agenda of extreme national environmental organizations. I urge moderate, responsible environmental organizations to join me in soundly defeating the proposal in the House and here, if and when the bill is ever brought before either chamber. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like Senator Murray, I am disturbed that BIA has now taken the position that the Medicine Creek Tribal College will not receive any funding. My office has worked with the tribe and understood that their funding needs would be met in fiscal year 1998. We urge the BIA make funds available from the increase in tribal community college funding to assist the Medicine Creek Tribal College move forward with its recent accreditation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator Ford, in submitting an amendment to the bill (H.R. 1271) the Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1997. The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] Research, Engineering, and Development [RE&D] account for fiscal year 1998. The FAA RE&D account finances projects to improve the safety, security, capacity, and efficiency of the U.S. aviation system. The authorization for the RE&D account expired at the end of September. Recognizing the key role that research and development efforts play in improving our Nation's aviation system, the Congress over time has strengthened the FAA RE&D program. In 1982, the Congress determined that a comprehensive research and development program was necessary to help ensure that the FAA could maintain a safe and efficient air traffic system. In 1988, the Congress established the FAA RE&D Advisory Board to help the FAA set research priorities. After the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the Congress approved the Aviation Safety Improvement Act of 1990, which required the FAA to support activities to accelerate the research and development of new technologies to protect against terrorism. This bill would authorize the FAA to finance important research and development efforts. These efforts include developing new fire- resistant insulation materials for use on aircraft. Fires are a major threat to aircraft, and this new insulation is intended to give passengers additional time to evacuate if an accident occurs. The FAA also has ongoing research to develop procedures for enhancing terminal area capacity and safety. It is noteworthy that the FAA works with other Federal agencies and the private sector to leverage RE&D funds. The FAA, for example, has cooperative arrangements with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense. The FAA is also currently working with more than 80 private industry partners on 15 major technology development projects. Working with private industry, for example, the FAA recently completed development of a new concrete foam material that will safely stop a large airliner that overshoots a runway because of problems during take off or landing. In addition to leveraging Federal funds, such partnerships facilitate the dissemination of research results to the private sector where they can be used to produce commercial products that will benefit the users of the U.S. aviation system. The bill includes a Sense of the Congress concerning the so-called Year 2000 problem as it relates to the FAA. Simply stated, the problem stems from the inability of some software to recognize the change from the year 1999 to the year 2000. In these cases, software code must be rewritten to prevent computer systems from crashing. Because the FAA has many systems, including various air traffic control systems, the bill states that the FAA should assess immediately the extent to which its systems will be affected, and to develop a plan and budget to make needed corrections. Funding appropriate research and development projects today can help to achieve a safer and more efficient air transportation system tomorrow. The bill that I am introducing authorizes this funding. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to give their full attention and consideration to the Aviation Competition Enhancement Act of 1997 that Senator McCain has just introduced. I would also recognize Senator McCain for his tireless efforts to address barriers to competition in the airline industry, and to provide better air service for consumers. Senator McCain has devoted much time to consideration of this issue. Compettion is a hallmark of our Nation, and the benefits of competition are clear. Studies show time and again that competition improves products and services, and reduces costs to consumers. When possible, the Congress should do whatever is reasonable to enhance competition. Airline competition has proven beneficial. Since the airline industry was deregulated, fares have fallen, and service options have increased on average across all communities. The major carriers deserve credit for responding well to competitive challenges. In addition, many of the benefits of deregulation can be attributed to the entry of so called low-fair airlines into the marketplace. The low-fare airlines have increased competition, and have enabled more people to fly than ever before. Air traffic has grown as a result, and all predictions are that it will continue to grow steadily over the next several years.. Although competition exists, there are also barriers to airline competition. The bill that Senator McCain has introduced today would loosen some of the anticompetitive Federal restrictions on the Nation's aviation system. These restrictions, such as slot controls and the perimeter rule at National Airport, inhibit competition. As a result, the benefits of deregulation have been limited in certain communities. I understand that changing the status quo by easing existing barriers is difficult. Airline businesses and services have evolved under these barriers. Airlines, airports, communities, and consumers have all grown accustomed to these barriers. This should not prevent us, however, from examining the adverse impacts of these barriers and exploring reasonable measures to remove them. I would also note that Senator McCain's bill would require the Department of Transportation to respond to complaints of predatory behavior on the part of major airlines within 90 days. There are numerous industry practices that warrant close scrutiny. Take for example computer reservation systems. Airline travelers usually buy tickets through travel agents, who almost always use a Computer Reservation System to determine what airline fares are available, and to make bookings. Each of the Computer Reservation Systems operating in the United States is entirely or predominately owned by one or more airlines or airline affiliates. This certainly gives these airlines and affiliates the ability to prejudice the competitive position of other airlines if not checked. Any airline that believes it is being subjected to predatory behavior deserves a timely response from the Department of Transportation. Again, I would urge my colleagues to take time from their busy schedules to consider Senator McCain's bill, and to provide their thoughts and insights on this important matter.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to give their full attention and consideration to the Aviation Competition Enhancement Act of 1997 that Senator McCain has just introduced. I would also recognize Senator McCain for his tireless efforts to address barriers to competition in the airline industry, and to provide better air service for consumers. Senator McCain has devoted much time to consideration of this issue. Compettion is a hallmark of our Nation, and the benefits of competition are clear. Studies show time and again that competition improves products and services, and reduces costs to consumers. When possible, the Congress should do whatever is reasonable to enhance competition. Airline competition has proven beneficial. Since the airline industry was deregulated, fares have fallen, and service options have increased on average across all communities. The major carriers deserve credit for responding well to competitive challenges. In addition, many of the benefits of deregulation can be attributed to the entry of so called low-fair airlines into the marketplace. The low-fare airlines have increased competition, and have enabled more people to fly than ever before. Air traffic has grown as a result, and all predictions are that it will continue to grow steadily over the next several years.. Although competition exists, there are also barriers to airline competition. The bill that Senator McCain has introduced today would loosen some of the anticompetitive Federal restrictions on the Nation's aviation system. These restrictions, such as slot controls and the perimeter rule at National Airport, inhibit competition. As a result, the benefits of deregulation have been limited in certain communities. I understand that changing the status quo by easing existing barriers is difficult. Airline businesses and services have evolved under these barriers. Airlines, airports, communities, and consumers have all grown accustomed to these barriers. This should not prevent us, however, from examining the adverse impacts of these barriers and exploring reasonable measures to remove them. I would also note that Senator McCain's bill would require the Department of Transportation to respond to complaints of predatory behavior on the part of major airlines within 90 days. There are numerous industry practices that warrant close scrutiny. Take for example computer reservation systems. Airline travelers usually buy tickets through travel agents, who almost always use a Computer Reservation System to determine what airline fares are available, and to make bookings. Each of the Computer Reservation Systems operating in the United States is entirely or predominately owned by one or more airlines or airline affiliates. This certainly gives these airlines and affiliates the ability to prejudice the competitive position of other airlines if not checked. Any airline that believes it is being subjected to predatory behavior deserves a timely response from the Department of Transportation. Again, I would urge my colleagues to take time from their busy schedules to consider Senator McCain's bill, and to provide their thoughts and insights on this important matter.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Correct.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. GORTON. Only by reporting a bill and having that bill passed and signed by the President.

Mr. GORTON. He would.

Mr. GORTON. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. GORTON. The administration could not without coming back to the Congress.

Mr. GORTON. Correct.

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. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. There are, however, a handful of issues in the conference agreement that I know are of great interest to all Senators. I will spend a little time discussing two of these issues: Land acquisition and the National Endowment for the Arts. The budget agreement provided the Appropriations Committees with the option to appropriate $700 million for ``priority land acquisitions and land exchanges,'' with the appropriation being in addition to the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This reserve fund was requested by the administration in budget talks, in large part because of the administration's desire to finance two major land purchases that it negotiated shortly before the Presidential election: The Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana. The administration originally had proposed to conduct these acquisitions administratively, exchanging oil and gas properties and revenue streams in ways that stretched existing exchange authorities to the limit, if not beyond. I and many others strongly objected to the proposed acquisitions at the time, in part because it was clear that the administration was trying to evade the requirements of the Budget Act and bypass Congress altogether on two major expenditures. In that sense, I am glad that the budget agreement provided an opportunity for these acquisitions to come before Congress, albeit not under ideal conditions. The House Appropriations Committee chose not to provide the $700 million. Chairman Regula not only doubted the value of the Headwaters and New World Mine acquisitions to the U.S. taxpayer, but also felt strongly that if $700 million were available in the context of the budget agreement, that money would be better spent reducing the multi- billion-dollar maintenance backlog that exists in our parks, refuges, and public lands. I cannot honestly say that I disagree with him on either point. I did, however, include the $700 million in the Senate bill, largely because I feel a personal commitment to the budget agreement and the broader benefits that it provides for the American taxpayer. $315 million of the funds provided in the Senate bill were for the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions. But because of the complexity of the acquisitions, the many questions that had been raised about them, and their sheer magnitude, I agreed with Senator Murkowski that the funds should be provided subject to enactment of subsequent authorizing legislation. Some have intimated that this was an attempt to kill the two deals, but I can assure you that on my part it was not. I also have no doubt that Senator Murkowski was doing anything other than his job, part of which is to authorize land purchases of this nature. The notion that Congress should simply accept the administration's word as to the worth of these expensive and highly complex projects is not only an abandonment of congressional prerogatives, but of our duty. Mr. President, the conference on the Interior bill was closed 3 weeks ago but for the very difficult question of land acquisition. The administration has continually insisted that the money for Headwaters and New World Mine must be included in any Interior bill that the President would sign, and that such money could not be subject to an authorizing requirement. Senator Murkowski has continued to insist on an appropriate role for the authorizing committee. Congressman Young, Congressman Hill, Congressman Riggs, and Senator Burns desired to make certain that the communities impacted by the two acquisitions were adequately compensated. Congressman Regula has insisted that a portion of the $700 million be made available to reduce maintenance backlogs on our public lands, rather than require all the money to be used to increase the public land base, and I should not fail to mention that Congressman Obey, among others, was greatly displeased that the budget resolution dictated to the penny the amount that the Appropriations Committee could provide for priority land acquisitions. The negotiations among all of these parties over the past several weeks have been exceedingly difficult. The compromise included in the conference report provides $699 million for priority land acquisitions and land exchanges, and critical maintenance needs. Of this amount, up to $250 million is for Headwaters Forest and up to $65 million is for the New World Mine. Authorizations for both projects are included in the conference report, but the acquisitions cannot be made until 180 days after enactment, providing the authorizing committees time to review the acquisitions and possibly recommend changes to the authorizing language. The authorizing language itself is the product of lengthy discussions between House and Senate authorizing committees, the Appropriations Committees and the administration. I should note that Senator Murkowski was a reluctant participant in these discussions, and feels strongly that the authorizing legislation should have gone through the normal committee process. I will also say that the administration is not in complete agreement with the provisions of the authorization. The major sticking point in these discussions over the last week has been the question of whether or not a formal appraisal would be required for the Headwaters and New World Mine acquisitions. The administration has insisted that appraisals are not necessary, and that Congress should be satisfied with an opinion of value--a term with no formal meaning. On the other hand, Senator Murkowski, Congressman Regula, and I all agree that a formal appraisal is the only way to safeguard the American taxpayer. While the conferees have reluctantly agreed not to cap the purchase price at the appraised value, the conference report does require an appraisal for each acquisition. In spite of the great strides that have been taken to address the concerns of the administration elsewhere in the bill, I have no doubt that if this bill is vetoed by the President, it will primarily be because of the appraisal requirement for these two acquisitions. I also have little doubt that if the bill is vetoed, the $700 million stands a better chance of being removed from a future bill than does the appraisal requirement. I cannot entirely account for the administration's strong resistance to the notion of a formal appraisal. If either appraisal places the value of these properties below the price to which the administration agreed, the administration will have ample opportunity to dispute the appraisal. Congress does, from time to time, approve acquisition above the appraised value. If either appraisal values one of these properties above the price to which the administration has agreed, such appraisals will only support the administration's case that these acquisitions represent good buys for the taxpayer. In short, I think Congress has been extraordinarily fair in its dealings with the administration with regard to Headwaters and New World Mine. Turning to the National Endowment for the Arts, my colleagues will recall that the House bill included zero funding for the NEA. The Senate bill included just over $100 million, a small increase over the current year level. The Senate also considered a number of NEA amendments during floor consideration, ranging from complete termination of the Endowment to greatly increasing the percentage of NEA funds that are provided as block grants to the States. Though the debate on these amendments made clear that there is significant concern about NEA's current structure and practices, the votes on the amendments also made clear that the Senate does not share what were apparently the views of the House. The conference report $98 million for NEA--a remarkable outcome given the House position. In exchange for providing nearly all the funding included in the Senate bill, the House requested that the conference report include a number of reforms to the NEA's structure and procedures. As a result, the conference report increases the percentage of block grants to States, makes arts education a priority, and alters the structure and membership of the National Council for the Arts to reflect congressional interest in the NEA's conduct and direction. With regard to the conference agreement on the NEA, it is safe to say that the House leadership is not pleased with the result. I think it is also safe to say that if this bill is vetoed and returned to conference, it is almost certain that the House will demand additional reductions in funding for the NEA. This is not a threat from an opponent of the Endowment. To the contrary, I have been a strong supporter of the NEA, even though I have been critical of some of the decisions made by the agency over the years. My comments are rather a simple recognition of current sentiment in Congress. In a similar vein, I cannot say what would happen to the $700 million for land acquisition should this bill be vetoed. This comes not from someone who strictly opposes providing the $700 million, but rather from someone who included the money in this bill in the first place. I am simply stating the fact that this conference agreement is very delicately balanced, and that a decision by the administration to come back for one more bite at the apple--despite the great lengths we have gone to accommodate its concerns--will not be without peril. On a less ominous note, I do want to take a brief moment to mention a few other items. First, I want to note the work that Senator Jeffords and Senator Torricelli have done in the interests of the preservation of Civil War battlefields--a subject near and dear to my heart. The Senators offered an amendment to this bill expressing the sense of the Senate that Civil War battlefield preservation should be a high priority for Congress. I know they would like to have done more, particularly with regard to earmarking a portion of the $700 million, but I do want them to know that I will continue to work with them in the allocation of the $700 million should this conference report be enacted. I also want to note some of the Civil War projects that are funded elsewhere in this bill, such as the $1.7 million provided for rehabilitation at Vicksburg National Military Park, the $2 million provided for stabilization work at Shiloh National Military Park, the $1 million provided for an interpretive center at Corinth battlefield, and the $3.5 million provided for land acquisition at Fredricksburg/ Spotsylvania National Military Park. I am also very pleased that the conference report provides a more than $1 million operating increase for Gettysburg National Military Park, a subject on which Senator Santorum has worked very diligently. I also want to clarify that the funding provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service for habitat conservation planning for the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse applies to four counties in Colorado. These mice range over four counties in Colorado and two counties in Wyoming. However, the mice occur on private lands in Colorado and on Federal land in Wyoming. The habitat conservation plan only applies to the private lands in Colorado. Finally, I want to make special note that this bill includes funding for the National Park Service to study alternatives for the commemoration and interpretation of events associated with the integration of the Charleston School District in Arkansas and Central High School in Little Rock. While other Senators are familiar with the events surrounding the integration of Central High School in 1957, they may not be aware that the Charleston public schools were actually the first to integrate in Arkansas--by some accounts the first in the South--shortly after the Brown versus Board of Education decision in 1954. My colleagues may also not be aware that Senator Bumpers is a former member of the Charleston School Board, and that he was counsel to the school board during the period in which the decision was made to integrate the Charleston schools. Perhaps the relatively smooth integration of the Charleston schools, as compared to the bitter struggle that took place at Central High School, is a most telling testament to Senator Bumpers' wisdom and power of persuasion--qualities that we will sorely miss after his departure from the Senate. With that I will once again express my thanks to Senator Byrd for all his help and guidance over the course of the year, and express my sincere hope that the President will sign this bill. I cannot stress too greatly the length to which we have gone to address the administration's concerns, nor can I overstate the delicacy of the balance that has been achieved in this conference report. Nothing good can come of the President vetoing this bill. [Exhibit 1] Efforts To Accommodate Administration Concerns forest service Forest land management planning The Senate bill included a provision prohibiting the expenditure of funds for revisions of individual forest plans until new forest planning regulations have been issued. Those regulations have been under review for eight years through two administrations, and have been withdrawn at the last minute prior to each of the last two presidential elections. Such delay is intolerable. The Appropriations Committee is greatly concerned that millions of dollars are being spent for forest plan revisions that will be invalid or obsolete upon issuance of the new regulations. The Committee is also concerned that the Forest Service may be revising plans pursuant to a set of regulations that have been drafted, but not aired in the public rulemaking process. The conference language has been significantly revised to accommodate Administration concerns, while making clear that the current forest planning process is broken and needs prompt revision. The conference language allows funds to be expended for forest plan revisions under current regulations where a Notice of Intent to Revise was published in the Federal Register prior to October 1, 1997, or where a court order directs that a revision must occur. The statement of managers further clarifies that the new regulations need only be released in an interim form to comply fully with this provision. Office of the Western Director The House bill eliminated all funding for operations of the western director and special assistant to the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Senate bill prohibited funding for this purpose absent approval through the reprogramming process. Despite House and Senate concerns about the use of funds for this purpose, the conference agreement allows Interior bill funds to be used for the western director up to the level provided in the Interior bill for fiscal year 1997. Log exports This important legislation bans the export of raw logs from national forest lands and from Washington State lands. It further alters rules governing substitution of private logs in the export market for federal timber. This legislation has bipartisan support and is the result of lengthy discussion among affected industries and parties in the affected states. This language encourages domestic processing of timber, creates more American jobs, and entirely bans the export of raw logs from State of Washington timber lands. Forest roads The Administration has objected to the fact that the conference agreement does not provide for the termination of the ``purchaser credit'' program for the construction of timber roads. The issue was hotly debated in both the House and Senate, but neither body voted to terminate the program. As such, the conference agreement is appropriate. While I firmly believe that the real issue in this debate is the continued effort by fringe environmentalists to eliminate the harvest of timber from National Forests, I believe it would be wise for Congress and the Administration to resolve this issue somewhere other than on the floors of the Senate and House. I encourage the Administration to negotiate with the timber industry, environmentalists, and timber workers to develop reforms that will build confidence in the purchaser credit program, and provide assurances to taxpayers that the program is an efficient alternative to Forest Service road construction, and is not an industry subsidy. Western red cedar The conference report contains language that protects the economic stability of timber processors in the Pacific Northwest by requiring the Forest Service to make Alaskan Western Red Cedar available to processors in the contiguous United States before it can be exported. Although the bill language does not fully satisfy the Administration, it does have strong bipartisan support in the Pacific Northwest where timber producers have been severely harmed by reduced availability of public timber, and fully complies with Alaska's Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan. Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project The conference agreement includes language on the Columbia Basin ecosystem planning project in response to Congressional concerns about the time, cost, and lack of results associated with this and previous ecosystem planning efforts. The language instructs the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to include in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) information on economic and social impacts at the sub- basin level. The conferees are aware that this may result in additional time and cost, but are willing to make this investment so that the people most affected by these decisions will have a better understanding of the impacts when the final EIS is implemented. The conference agreement also requires a report to Congress on potential implementation costs and potential impacts on resource and commodity production in the Interior Columbia Basin. To date this project has cost taxpayers $90 million. The Administration has estimated that implementation of the plan could cost an additional $135 million per year. It is certainly legitimate for Congress to seek more information about such costs and impacts prior to finalization of the plan. The language gives the Administration flexibility to perform its analysis in an efficient manner. President's northwest forest plan The Administration has complained about language included in the Statement of Managers requiring that 757 million board feet be offered for sale under the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, of which ten percent must meet the Administration's definition of ``other wood.'' This language uses the Administration's own figures, and is simply included to provide some level of accountability to ensure that the Forest Service lives up to its commitments. natural resources Lake Clark national park and preserve The Senate bill included a provision extending the statute of limitations of certain Alaska Native Village Corporations and the area Regional Corporation to bring suit against the Department of the Interior with regard to certain land claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This provision was acceptable to the Administration. A second provision added in conference would have required future litigation on this issue to be considered in trial de novo, and would have required that certain elements of such litigation be construed to the benefit of the Native Corporations. Sen. Stevens strongly believed this amendment to be appropriate from the standpoint of fairness to the Native Corporations, but the Administration also felt strongly that the additional provisions were contrary to the agreements that the Department of the Interior had reached with the Native Corporations regarding land selections. The conference report includes the Senate provision extending the statute of limitations, as well as language allowing additional evidence to be introduced in any litigation that may ensue. The language included in the conference report has been agreed to by the Administration. Rulemaking on hardrock mining The Administration objected to the Senate Appropriations Committee's provisions in section 339 which would have prohibited Department of the Interior's use of funds for a rulemaking to update rules on surface management of hardrock mines until the Secretary of the Interior established a Federal-State advisory committee that would have prepared a consensus report for Congress on the relationship of State and Federal surface management policies. In response, section 339 has been amended to permit the Interior Department to develop a rulemaking on hardrock mining upon the certification by the Secretary of the Committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate that the Department has consulted with the governor of each state that contains public lands open to location under the General Mining Laws. The publication of proposed regulations shall not occur before November 15, 1998 and regulations shall not be finalized prior to 90 days after publication of the proposed regulations. Grizzly bears The conference agreement does include a limitation on funds for the reintroduction of grizzly bears in the Selway- Bitteroot area of Idaho and Montana. This provision was adopted by unanimous voice vote during Senate committee markup and was not contested on the Senate floor. At the request of the Administration, however, the language has been changed to make clear that the Environmental Impact Statement on reintroduction can proceed to a Record of Decision. Since the Administration has stated that actual reintroduction is unlikely to take place in fiscal year 1998, it is unclear what substantive objection remains. Alaska subsistence The Administration strongly objected to a provision in the House bill that would have extended a moratorium on the assumption of Federal control over fisheries management in Alaska pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The conference agreement incorporates a compromise between Members of the Alaska delegation, the Administration, the State of Alaska and other elected officials in Alaska that will facilitate resolution of the subsistence issue. This provision is directly relevant to the appropriations process, as the cost to the Federal government of assuming management responsibilities would be substantial. World heritage and man in the biosphere programs The House voted to prohibit the use of funds for the World Heritage and Man in the Biosphere programs, a provision to which the Administration has strongly objected. The conference agreement does not prohibit the use of funds for the World Heritage program, which has grounding in prior statute and treaty, but does prohibit the use of funds to nominate sites under the Man in the Biosphere program until that program is specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizing legislation addressing these issues is under active consideration by Congress, and it is reasonable for the Appropriations Committee to prohibit the use of funds for the Man in the Biosphere program until U.S. participation in the program is authorized. Pennsylvania avenue redesign The conference agreement prohibits the Administration from expending Interior bill funds for redesign of Pennsylvania Avenue between 15th and 17th Streets, N.W., without the approval of the Appropriations Committees through the reprogramming process. The Administration objected to the original version of this provision on the grounds that it might have prevented the implementation of security measures to protect the White House. While such was not the intent or effect of the amendment as originally proposed, the amendment has been modified at the request of the White House. The Treasury Department has received over $51 million in direct appropriations since 1996 specifically for security around the White House. The provision in the Interior bill is directed at funds that would be spent by the Park Service, primarily for beautification of the area. The Administration has chosen an option for the redesign that would cost over $50 million. The details of this plan were only recently released, and have received very little scrutiny. The Appropriations Committee simply wants the opportunity to discuss with the Administration its proposal before a significant amount of Park Service funds is committed to a particular plan of action. arts programs Smithsonian Institution The Administration objection to the fact that the House bill provided no funds for construction of the National Museum of the American Indian Mall Museum. The conference agreement provides $29 million for the first half of construction costs as proposed in the Senate-passed bill and in the Administration's budget request. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The conferees agreed to fund the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWIC) at the budget request level of $5.8 million, as proposed in the Senate bill. Due to concern about administration of the Center's programs, the House recommended a $1 million appropriation for FY 1998--an amount that would have terminated the Center's operations. National Endowment for the Arts The House bill included no funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The Senate bill included $100 million, a decrease below the request but a slight increase over FY 1997. There was considerable debate about the NEA during conference, but the final result was a compromise that substantially protects the Endowment's current funding level. Certain reforms to the NEA's structure and grant-making processes were adopted, but provisions to expand radically the black grant program or impose an administrative budget cap--two items of particular concern to the Administration-- were not among the reforms adopted. The conferees also rejected an effort to reduce the appropriation by $10 million below the Senate level. programs for native americans Tribal priority allocations The conference agreement provides funding for BIA Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) at the Administration's requested level, the level included in the Budget Agreement. Within that amount, the conference agreement requires that all federally-recognized tribes be provided at least the minimum level of TPA recommended by the BIA, a goal supported by the BIA and Interior Department but missing from the President's request. The TPA language included in section 118 of the conference report represents a serious attempt to respond to the Administration's concerns about the original Senate language, while still addressing the fact that discretionary appropriations are limited, and that the TPA pro rata allocation is inequitable and unresponsive to the disparate needs of the tribes. Currently, 309 of 526 Federally- recognized tribes do not receive the minimum recommended level of TPA. The Administration has not requested measures to rectify the inequitable distribution of TPA among the tribes. The Senate proposed a new distribution method based on a number of factors to measure the relative means of tribes. Despite universal agreement that the current distribution method of TPA is archaic and has resulted in great financial disparity among the tribes, the Administration opposed the Senate's proposal. The Conference report provides full funding for TPA at the requested level to be distributed as follows: All pro rata TPA programs will be funded at the fiscal year 1997 level adjusted for all fixed costs and internal funding transfers; all formula-funded TPA programs will be funded at the requested level; all Federally-recognized tribes will receive at least at the minimum level of $160,000 in TPA funds as recommended by the BIA; and any remaining funds will be distributed based on recommendations of a task force, which shall include tribal leaders, to be established by the Secretary of the Interior. Taxation of tribal revenues Contrary to Administration complaints that the Congress would add such a provision to the bill, the conference report contains no provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for any tribe that had not entered into a binding agreement with State and local governments regarding the tribe's collection and payment of State and local sales and excise taxes on retail purchases made on the land by non-tribal members. Sovereign immunity The Senate bill originally contained a provision that would waive the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes accepting certain Federal funds. The Administration strongly objected to this provision, which was removed during Senate floor consideration in response to commitments from the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on the issue and to mark up a bill from the Committee during the next session of Congress. Indian gaming The Conference Report contains the Senate-passed provisions at section 129 concerning approval of Tribal-State compacts for Indian gaming. The Administration opposed this language in a September 30, 1997 letter to Congress. The Administration is reminded, however, that the amendment was modified by its sponsors in response to concerns that the original version would have resulted in Federal law preempting State law. The Conferees are concerned that the States affected by Indian gaming within their borders are kept out of the decision-making process with regard to Indian gaming. Section 129 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from unilaterally approving any initial Tribal-State compacts for class III gaming entered into on or after the date of enactment of the Interior Appropriations Act. Section 129 does not affect Secretarial review or approval of a renewal or revision of, or amendment to, existing tribal-State compacts. The Conferees modified section 131 as passed by the Senate, which the Administration opposed. As passed by the Senate, section 131 would have prevented the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) from taking action to change its current regulations to define certain types of new electronic gambling. As modified, the provision prohibits the NIGC from issuing draft or final rules, but clarifies that the Commission may gather information during fiscal year 1998 relating to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on such regulations it recently published. Given the time required to proceed with information-gathering relative to the Advanced Notice, the year prohibition will not be an undue interference with the Commission in exercising its regulatory and oversight duties on tribal gaming activities. The National Governors Association supports both section 129 and section 131. department of energy Energy conservation The conference agreement provides $612 million for Energy Conservation programs, an amount which is roughly a split between the comparable levels provided by the House and Senate. While the amount provided by the conference agreement is below the budget request, it is $42 million above the FY 1997 level--a substantial increase. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report on H.R. 2107, the fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The conference report provides $13.8 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior subcommittee, and incorporates a number of changes to House and Senate funding levels and legislative provisions in an effort to reconcile the differences between the two bodies, and to reconcile the differences between the Congress and the administration. I firmly believe the resulting conference agreement is worthy of my colleagues' support. While at this time I will not go into great detail about the conference report, I want to stress the fact that the conferees on this bill have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to accommodate the concerns of the administration. I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed discussion of the modifications that have been made in response to administration concerns appear at the end of my statement.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 28, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the potential impacts on, and additional responsibilities for, Federal land managers imposed by the Environmental protection Agency's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on regional haze regulations implementing sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. on aviation competition legislation.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, to conduct a hearing on Electronic Authentication and Digital Signature 10:30 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 38, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Protecting Our Medical Information Rights, Responsibilities, and Risks during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, October 28, 9 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406) on the President's nomination of Lt. Gen. Kenneth R. Wykle (Ret. Army) to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.