T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the majority leader has already pointed out what he hopes will be the schedule in connection with this and other bills during the course of the week. As he said, there will not be any votes on any amendments to this bill today, but through most of last week, we expressed our views that today would present a wonderful opportunity to debate what may very well be the most controversial of all of the elements in the bill: the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts. The notices that I have received in connection with amendments include more on that subject, those which are to be more liberal with the National Endowment than the bill has been and those wishing to be more conservative or to restrict its use or even to abolish its appropriation, have stated that they will produce such amendments. We have asked as many of those Members to be present sometime during today's session of the Senate as possible. Most of them on Friday indicated that they would be able to be here today. Obviously, as the majority leader said, today gives them an opportunity to debate their amendments and to state their views on the National Endowment for the Arts in full and at leisure, where tomorrow may be somewhat more hectic. So I hope that all of them who are in or around the Capitol and the staffs of all of those Senators who have an interest in the subject will urge them to come to the floor, offer their amendments, speak to the National Endowment for the Arts, complete much of the debate on the subject today so that we can vote tomorrow on that subject. Having said that, Mr. President, noticing that no such Senators are present today, I have remarks on a subject of importance--vital importance--to the people of the State of Washington, one that has a high local profile and one that has also been of interest to the administration to the extent that it made a specific reference to it in its budget presentation this year. So I will ask the indulgence of the President and will make my remarks with respect to the Elwha River dams at this point. Mr. President, during the course of the last week, I said publicly that I would consider supporting removal of one of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Specifically, with important conditions attached, I can support legislation that would allow the removal of the smaller downriver dam. As this represents something of a change in my position, it warrants a more detailed explanation on my part--what this new position means and, just as importantly, what it does not mean. For many years, national environmental groups, the Clinton administration, much of the media in the Pacific Northwest, and many Northwest elected officials have pushed for the removal of both dams on the Elwha River. In 1992, I reluctantly supported legislation to begin the process of having the Government study and acquire both of these dams with an eye toward removing them at some time in the future. Even so, it is no surprise to anyone from Washington State to hear me say today that I have been less than excited about this proposal. While I always have been enthusiastic about the Federal Government's purchasing these two dams from a local paper company, I have been skeptical that Elwha River dam removal will provide significant benefit to our salmon resources. For years, I have been told that 100-pound salmon used to fill the Elwha River, and that if we just removed these two dams, those big salmon would return. While that is the proponents' most compelling argument--perhaps their only argument--for removal, I fear that it is one with the promises that have caused us to spend some $3 billion on the Columbia River, with little discernible effect, except on our power costs. If dams are the reason that there are no 100-pound salmon swimming in the Elwha River, why are there no huge salmon in dozens of other Olympic Peninsula rivers that have never been dammed? Will we waste our money on the Elwha as we have on the Columbia? As you can tell, I have severe doubts about the wisdom of knocking down either of these dams under the guise of benefit to the salmon. I am quite certain, however, that there are other clear costs to their removal. Taxpayers must pay the huge costs of that removal. Power generation will be lost, and in the case of the Elwha River Dams, serious questions remain about potential damage to the city of Port Angeles' water supply. As I weigh these costs against the potential benefits to salmon, I have almost always sided against dam removal. Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as a cost-benefit analysis. If it were, the costs of removing the two dams would certainly outweigh the potential benefit to the salmon. But, as I say, it is not just that simple anymore. There is a wild card to this issue that makes me nervous, a wild card that makes me want to act now, a wild card that, if played, could have a devastating effect on the Port Angeles community. The desire of the Interior Secretary to tear down a dam, a proposal he has advocated consistently, together with the very real and growing threat that a Federal judge, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, may order the removal of Elwha River Dams without congressional approval, present real threats to the community, are beyond our control and cannot be ignored. A court- or agency-ordered removal may well impose all of the costs of removing the dams on the local community. Jobs would be destroyed, and Port Angeles' supply of clean drinking water would be threatened. The risk of court or agency action is too great and will leave the local community in a terrible position if a judge or Washington, DC, bureaucrat were to suddenly decide that he or she could take charge of this issue. The lower Elwha River Dam produces only a modest amount of power, about a third of that produced by the upper Elwha River Dam, and a minuscule amount in comparison to our productive Snake and Columbia River Dams. In addition, Mr. President, the lower Elwha River Dam is in bad physical shape. So, if Congress acts properly, we can remove the wild card from the deck and assure an important level of community protection. As a consequence, my support for this lower dam's removal is conditioned on legislated protection for Port Angeles' water supply and protection for the jobs created by the local mill. No legislation to remove an Elwha River Dam will pass the U.S. Senate without these protections, except over my strong objections, while I am a Member. Mr. President, I must tell you that while I believe the course of action I am taking on the issue is the right one, I am disturbed by what is forcing me to take this step in such a hasty manner. I am driven by the threat of court action, or the possibility that the Federal Government might just step in and remove the dams on its own with no thought given to the concerns of the local community. While I have come to this agonizing decision after years of internal and public debate about the fate of these dams, my decision has been driven by the unilateral activism this administration has demonstrated when it comes to complex environmental issues. Based upon the Clinton administration's actions last year in Utah, can anyone not justifiably worry that a similar overreaching Federal Government authority will take place on the Elwha River? Is there any doubt that when this administration is faced with deciding between the desires of national environmental organizations and the needs of local communities, it always sides with the national environmental groups? This is not an easy decision for me--it is made difficult by the dozens of meetings I've had with people most affected by this issue. I've listened to hundreds of local people who live near the Elwha River express their concerns with dam removal and what it means to the local community. To be fair, I am also impressed by the work of a broad-based coalition of residents who have studied the issue and who may have originated the proposal to deal with the two dams separately, in a staged process. I want to commend the Elwha Citizens' Advisory Committee for its work on this issue, and all of the hard work that went into developing the committee's report, ``The Elwha River and Our Community's Future.'' I've also listened to the concerns of my constituents in eastern Washington, who while not immediately impacted by the removal of the Elwha River dams, are watching this debate closely because of their concern that something similar could happen on the Columbia or Snake Rivers. I want to speak specifically to those people right now, Mr. President, and to anyone who might attempt to use my position on this issue as a justification for removing other dams in the Pacific Northwest, or as asserting that I believe the idea to be worth considering. Because of the controversial nature of this issue, I think it is important that people understand what my position on the Elwha River dams does not mean. Some groups and elected officials support removal of Elwha River dams as a first step, a practice run, toward removing Columbia River system hydroelectric dams. Those who want to make a habit of dam removal should understand this proposition: I will never support their proposals to remove Snake or Columbia River dams--never. Our Northwest forebears built for us the world's most productive hydroelectric system. It is our great economic legacy and continues today as part of the reason families in the Northwest enjoy the Nation's lowest power rates. This clean and renewable resource does not pollute. These dams also irrigate productive farmland in Idaho, eastern Washington, and eastern Oregon. These dams have created an enormous and productive aquatic highway that moves our agricultural products to our ports. These dams save Portland, Oregon, and hundreds of other communities from disastrous flooding. Of course, the Columbia River System dams exact an environmental price. They hurt our salmon runs. That damage was felt primarily in the 1930's and 1940's. Since the last Columbia River dam was constructed we continued to have large and healthy salmon runs. The last decade's alarming decline in Columbia River salmon runs obviously has more profound causes than our hydroelectric facilities alone. We can do more for salmon especially by acting in a more intelligent and coordinated way to restore our Northwest salmon resources. But the costs associated with removing dams on the Snake or Columbia Rivers will always dwarf the potential benefit to salmon. Therefore, Mr. President, I intend this year to work with my colleagues to complete acquisition of the two Elwha River dams with dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, I will introduce legislation authorizing the removal of the lower Elwha River dam. But that bill will also contain three vital conditions I believe to be absolutely necessary at the same time: First, a 12-year study of the impact of lower dam removal on fish populations before any consideration of removing the upper dam; Second, a guaranteed hold harmless for the Pot Angeles water supply; Third, no dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers System can be removed, breached, or modified in a way that substantially destroys its ability to produce power, and provide irrigation, transportation or flood control without the prior authorization of Congress. I think it is vitally important to America's taxpayers that the first condition be met. This is a very costly proposition--the Government estimates that it will cost as much as $60 million to remove the lower Elwha River dam. My sources tell me that those estimates are way too low and that the final cost could be much higher. Of course, no one really knows what this project might cost, which is why only the lower dam should come down now. I want to be sure that when the inevitable day comes when national environmental groups and editorial writers push for removal of the upper dam, they have a true idea of what it will cost and whether the removal of the dam will actually work. The best way to do that is to study what happens when the lower dam is removed. We will be able to find out exactly what it costs to take out this dam, and, even better, we can find out once and for all whether removing a dam will actually bring back salmon. I believe my second condition is only fair to the people of Port Angeles, and is one that should be met with little, or no, opposition. As for my third condition, I think it is vital to my constituents in eastern Washington, and to my colleagues who represent Montana, Idaho, and eastern Oregon, that we in the Congress, and in the administration make the important statement that the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are not to be touched in the immediate future, unless Congress has debated the issue and agrees. Radical revisionists in the media, national environmental groups, and in the administration are actually talking more and more about tearing down 1 of the 11 dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Just last week, a prominent Northwest newspaper had a lengthy story about the dam removal movement, and how the proposition for tearing down a dam on the Columbia River System was gaining momentum. As you can imagine, even talking about this subject causes huge concern in the communities that depend upon the river for their livelihoods. It also causes a profound concern to this Senator, which is why I think it is important that we nip such a proposal in the bud, and nip it now. This legislation is the most appropriate place to do so. With that, Mr. President, I have completed my thoughts on the policy of this proposal. Let me now discuss the practicality of getting this done in a reasonable amount of time. Many of the advocates for Elwha River Dam removal think Congress should be able to fund the entire project out of the remaining money in the land and water conservation fund. Because I am chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, these people believe that I can simply tell my colleagues that I intend to take $18.5 million of this money to complete acquisition, and then grab another $60 million for removal of lower dam, leaving the remaining dollars--after the $315 million for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana, and the $100 million in State acquisition grants--for division among the other 49 States. To those back home who believe that it is either fair or possible that I should be able to do that with a snap of my fingers, I suggest a lack of understanding of how Congress works. Today we start in earnest on working through this year's Interior appropriations bill. In this bill, I have dealt with Washington State projects in a fair and generous fashion. We have been able to fund an additional $2 million for the Forest Legacy Program, $8 million for land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and an additional $3 million for forest health research at the Pacific Northwest Research Station. Other priority projects which have been funded in the Senate Interior appropriations bill and directly benefit Washington State include: An increase of $3 million over the President's budget request for trail maintenance in the Pacific Northwest; $2.5 million to develop a visitors center, interpretive center, and educational center at the Vancouver National Historic Reserve; $500,000 in support of Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail activities; $2,452,000 to replace the Paradise employee dorm at Mount Ranier National Park; $750,000 for regional fisheries enhancement; $840,000 for construction of a trailhead and information station at the Steigerwald National Wildlife Refuge; and $275,000 for the North Cascades National Park to fulfill its obligations under various settlement agreements relating to the relicensing of hydroelectric projects. I feel comfortable with what I have accomplished for my State, and proud of that work. I must admit that I would not feel comfortable simply demanding from my colleagues that the remaining acquisition funds come out of the land and water conservation fund without a strong statement of support from the administration and the entire Congress. I believe such a statement is needed so that my colleagues from around the Nation can understand why their priority items are being placed behind spending an additional $18 million to complete the acquisition of the Elwha River Dams, and another $60 million to remove the lower dam. And Washingtonians may well ask themselves if they are willing to give up new projects like those I have already discussed for several years in order to put all of our fair share into Elwha River Dam removal. Second, there is little chance that funds for removal of the lower dam will come from the land and water conservation fund. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to ask for such a sum. Out of fairness to other States around the country, I believe the funds for removal of the lower dam need to move through other channels, or at least be specifically authorized to come out of a land and water conservation fund primarily for land acquisition rather than capital improvements. Just as the original legislation sponsored by Senator Brock Adams needed the authorization of the Energy Committee and the entire Congress, the extraordinary level of funding requested for this project needs to be authorized by Congress as well. My legislation will propose just that. And I hope that this legislation will be considered as swiftly as possible. I realize that back home I will be criticized for not grabbing all of the funding for this project in this year's appropriations process. To those critics, I suggest an absence of rational thought and fairness. Washington State does quite well under this year's Interior appropriations bill. Funding the removal of the lower Elwha River Dam would dramatically tip the scales away from fairness, and rightly cause justifiable and successful opposition from my colleagues around the country who have vital programs in their States that need funding. All of us want to get the most for our States, and in our hearts, we believe that every request for our State is an urgent priority, but in our minds we also know that we can't fund every request. That means we must balance our desire to help our States with the reality that Congress can only fund so many projects for each State. As I said at the beginning of this debate on Friday, Mr. President, I had 1,800 requests from the 100 Senators in this body for projects in which they had a great interest, the huge majority of which were home- State projects. That is the reality I face as I work to resolve this difficult issue involving the Elwha River dams. I know it is a reality that critics don't want to hear or acknowledge, but the simple truth is this--full funding of acquisition and removal this year is highly unlikely, and impossible without setting aside almost all other important Washington State projects, and something I am not willing to do. Therefore, the best solution is to complete acquisition this year, and for that I need the administration to state publicly that this remains one of its top priorities. At the same time, I will start the process for removing the lower dam by introducing legislation for consideration by the Energy Committee, the administration, and the rest of Congress. Mr. President, I thank you for giving me this time this morning to discuss an issue important for my home State. In summary, I guess I would finish by saying that on this issue of Northwest dam removal, tally me this way: ``once, with conditions.'' Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I do not think it would be possible for a Member of this body to defend more eloquently the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts or the place that the arts in the broadest sense of that term play in our society than we have just heard from the Senator from Texas. From the beginning of the debate over this issue she has taken a consistently supportive position but not a position that simply supports the status quo blindly. She helped draft the conditions a year or 2 or 3 years ago that prohibited the National Endowment for the Arts from making a broad range of individual grants that were the source of most of what the vast majority of the American people regarded as outrageous misuses of the taxpayers' money. And here today, she does not defend the status quo--though, essentially, the status quo is what is proposed by this bill in its present form--but is attempting to strengthen the Endowment by decentralizing the granting process to a significant degree, and by spreading it in a way that she feels is more equitable across all of the States and jurisdictions of the United States. So this is one of the amendments that is a friendly amendment, one can say, and it was for that reason that I asked her to defer formally introducing it until we could hear from the opponents of the Endowment itself and deal with the several amendments on this subject in logical fashion. As the Senator from Texas knows, the committee bill that is on the floor at the present time simply makes a very modest--probably less than inflation--increase in the Endowment, maintains essentially the same conditions that have been imposed on it over the last 2 or 3 years, but does not attempt to change the structure of the way in which those grants are made. I think that the proposal of the Senator from Texas is likely to be considered very carefully and thoughtfully by her colleagues here on the floor and, if not here on the floor, perhaps in a conference committee where, as all Senators are quite well aware, we will be faced with a House position that is essentially to abolish the National Endowment, and which will almost certainly require us to make some changes in the proposal that is here before the Senate in order to assure an acceptable compromise. So, without at this point taking a position on the specific amendment proposed by the Senator, I do want to say that I am convinced that it is a constructive contribution to a very important debate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senate will be in session today only for the transaction of morning business. No rollcall votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. On Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. As announced, no rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session. The majority leader intends that the Senate conclude debate on the Interior bill by Tuesday. As a consequence, Members are encouraged to contact the managers of the bill to schedule floor action on any possible amendments on Monday or Tuesday. As Members are aware, this is the next to the last appropriations bill remaining for Senate consideration, so Members' cooperation is appreciated in the scheduling of floor action as we attempt to conclude action on both the Interior appropriations bill and the District of Columbia appropriations bill next week. As a result of this policy, the next rollcall vote will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment to S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration reform bill, which will occur on Tuesday at 10 a.m. Under rule XXII, all first-degree amendments to S. 830 must be filed by 1 p.m. on Monday. The majority leader thanks his colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, as manager of the Interior appropriations bill, I have spoken to a number of my colleagues with interest in the National Endowment for the Arts to express my views and those of Senator Stevens and the majority leader that to the maximum possible extent, amendments relating to the National Endowment for the Arts be presented and debated on Monday. With a single exception, all of the Members who I am aware of who may have such amendments have been contacted and have expressed their cooperation. But for the information of all Members on both sides of the aisle, Monday will provide a time at which the National Endowment for the Arts can be debated at leisure without time constraints or the interference of other matters. So I do hope that those Members who have an interest in expressing their views on the subject will come to the floor of the Senate on Monday afternoon and let their views be known to other Members of the Senate. This is not to say, of course, that other amendments will not be in order on Monday, as they will be. We are aware of the possibility of amendments by Senators Helms and Ashcroft that would terminate the National Endowment for the Arts in the way that the House of Representatives voted to do; additional amendments by Senator Helms with respect to content restrictions; a potential amendment by Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, together with Senators Sessions and Abraham on block granting most or all of the funds for the National Endowment for the Arts; an amendment by Senator Hutchison of Texas to restructure the grant process of NEA; an amendment by Senator Jeffords, as the chairman of the authorizing committee for the Endowment, to deal with the committee's authorization proposal as a part of this appropriations debate; and the possibility that Senator Cochran may wish to clarify the definition of arts education. That is not to say all these amendments will, in fact, be adopted. It is not to say there are not others. I may report that there seems to be more interest in debating this issue in a number of different guises than there is of any other part of the Interior appropriations bill. I, obviously, will be here for the day. I hope I am accompanied by the great majority of those who wish to speak on the issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of our time on the first nomination.

Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been requested with respect to either this nomination or either of the two succeeding nominations?

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to make one request that the yeas and nays be ordered and it apply to all three nominees.

Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. On behalf of the majority leader, I am authorized to announce there will be no further rollcall votes today. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GORTON. Certainly.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I do want to respond to the thoughtful suggestions of the Senators from North Dakota and South Dakota while each of them is still on the floor. I reflected, as they discussed the value of higher education, in this case to Indians, on the force of their argument. It certainly is possible that on some other elements of this bill relating to Indians that we may have some disagreements. But, certainly, if we speak about either a doctrine of self-determination or self-sufficiency, education makes a major contribution to the ability of an individual either to be self-determining or self-sufficient. To the extent that we can encourage education, greater sophistication and greater knowledge, obviously we ought to do so. In this bill we have added $1 million to approximately a $27 million appropriation last year for the particular purpose to which they speak. That is $2 million less than the President's request, where the total allocation we have is some $46 million less than the President's request. We have, however, given almost a $700,000 increase to the United Tribes Technical College in the State of the Senator from North Dakota, which the President did not include in his budget, based essentially on the same philosophy that has been stated here by the two of them. I can assure both Senators that we will see whether or not in some respect or another we can accommodate what seems to be a reasonable request, understanding that we have a lot of reasonable requests in a lot of areas of the bill. Also, I have to state that one reservation I have is to the sort of let's just cut everything else proportionately without setting values. We worked as hard as we could on these matters, the others of which applied to all citizens of the United States. The degree of deferred maintenance in our national parks and national forests and other recreational facilities is literally measured in the billions of dollars. We tried to at least begin to work on that. So, if, perhaps, the focus of where we find the $2 million could be more narrowly aimed, if they could discuss with their own constituents whether there are other Indian programs that could absorb such a shift, or some other thing of that sort, it will make it easier for us. But I do want to assure both of them that I have heard what they have to say. With their philosophy about education, I entirely agree. And to the extent, in a bill where, as I said in my opening remarks, we had 1,800 requests from Members of the Senate, very few of which this Senator thinks in the abstract were not justified, by any means, I will try to the best of my ability to oblige. I am sure I speak for Senator Byrd when I make that statement.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted for the duration of the Interior bill to Angela Logomasini of Senator Brownback's staff.

Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think I can announce I know of no further business relating to the Interior bill that is likely to come before the Senate this afternoon. But I do ask that any Senator who may wish to speak on the subject or offer an amendment on the subject report his or her intention to do so promptly.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is an agreed-to amendment between Senator Byrd and myself that is presented on behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. He has a special provision relating to certain uses of the White Mountain National Forest that are included in the bill. Technical errors were made in connection with that amendment, which added an unanticipated cost. These technical changes will cure that defect.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased, together with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, to bring before the Senate the fiscal year 1998 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill provides $13.755 billion in net budget authority for the agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior subcommittee--a reduction of $46 million from the administration's amended budget request. In spite of this reduction, I believe that this bill protects the high priorities of the administration, while also reflecting the priorities of this body. The Interior bill, Mr. President, is a fascinating mix of 91 appropriations accounts covering more than 40 individual bureaus in four different Cabinet Departments and numerous independent agencies. When I first became chairman of the subcommittee, I asked the staff to break down the bill into its major components so that I could understand better the competing demands within the bill. What we came up with was this chart behind me, Mr. President. The chart breaks this bill into six functional categories--land management programs, Indian programs, science and minerals programs, energy programs, cultural programs, and the operation of the Interior Department office itself. Though many of the individual programs within these categories are small in simple dollar terms, most of them have direct and tangible impacts on the lives of average Americans. As such, they tend to have vocal constituencies. You will see, Mr. President, that within each of these six major functions, we have shown some of the breakdowns. The largest amount of money goes into land management programs. Those programs, in turn, fall into two separate departments. As the Forest Service, the largest single one of these programs, is within the Department of Agriculture, the others are within the Department of the Interior. They are in green on the left side of this chart. The second largest, by all odds, of the elements that are in this bill are Indian programs, primarily the Indian Health Service, and the general programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Smaller amounts fall within the science and minerals programs. The most significant there is the United States Geological Survey. Energy programs within the purview of that Department include fossil energy research and development and energy conservation research and development. Finally, the cultural programs which may well occupy more of the passionate debate time on this floor than any of the others, include museums and the two national endowments. Finally, the very small graph line on the right is for the operation of the Department of Interior itself. An indication of how vocal the constituencies for this bill are is the fact that we on the subcommittee received more than 1,800 individual requests from Senators. Mr. President, 100 Senators and 1,800 requests for items in the Interior bill, the vast majority of which were for additions to the President's budget request. Within a subcommittee allocation that is actually somewhat smaller than the President's request, it has obviously been impossible to satisfy more than a fraction of these requests while still pressuring the ongoing base programs of the individual agencies shown in that chart. So the task of putting together the fiscal year 1998 bill was complicated by the completion of the balanced budget agreement. First, I need to report something that I have said frequently on the floor that I am a strong supporter of that agreement, from the very beginning of negotiations through the deliberations of the Budget Committee, through its final passage and implementation. I also recognize that the agreement makes available more discretionary spending for the Interior bill than I think we would have had in its absence. That said, the agreement explicitly provided that four programs in the Interior bill be funded at the request level that the President made for the budget: The operation of the National Park System, the Park Service land acquisition program and State assistance, the restoration of the Everglades, and tribal priority allocations within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the absence of a budget agreement I would only be honest to say I would not have recommended that all of these programs be funded at the budget request level. Personally, I believe there are other programs covered by the bill that are of at least that degree of priority or of a higher priority. Even so, the bill before you does fund these programs at levels consistent with the budget agreement. Having reached the agreement, having voted for the agreement in principle, Mr. President, it seems appropriate to me that we keep the promises that were included within it. I intend to do so to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, the effect of protecting these programs is that there was less funding available for other agencies and activities funded in the bill. The budget agreement also created a $700 million reserve fund for priority land acquisitions. That amount has been included in the bill and is in addition to the $242 million provided for specific land acquisition projects in the regular acquisition accounts. The budget agreement made no provision for the carrying costs of the lands to be acquired with the $700 million, nor for the payments in lieu of taxes that likely must be paid on these lands. While I believe that the $700 million might better be spent reducing the huge maintenance backlogs that already exist on Federal lands, essentially taking care of what we already have, my strong support for the budget agreement compelled me to include the $700 million in this bill. The House did not do so. Knowing how strongly Chairman Regula feels about this issue, I anticipate our discussion in conference on the subject will be a lively one, to say the least. Of the $700 million provided for land acquisition in title V, $250 million is set aside for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest in California and $65 million is set aside for the acquisition of the New World Mine in Montana. Both of these appropriations remain subject to enactment of specific authorizing legislation. I have included the authorizing clause due to the magnitude of these two acquisitions, the complex structure of the acquisition agreement, and the fact that the agreements themselves were struck with very little congressional oversight or involvement. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], among others, has expressed to me a number of serious concerns and questions about each of these acquisitions. As chairman of the relevant authorizing committee, it is appropriate that he be given the opportunity to have his questions answered by the administration. I am confident he will work in good faith to draft appropriate authorizing legislation, and I understand that he intends to hold a hearing on this issue in the near future. The administration and many Members on the other side of the aisle wish to avoid the authorizing process entirely. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, made no such appropriation at all. It seems to me where we stand in this bill for the purposes of debating this bill here in the Senate, we are at the right stage. We should appropriate the $700 million. We should allow the authorizing committee to do its work on these two expensive, complicated, and vitally important acquisitions. Of the $700 million, an additional $100 million is provided specifically for the ``stateside'' grant program. As some of my colleagues may be aware, this is a program that was essentially terminated by the Appropriations Committee in the fiscal year 1996 bill. The Interior subcommittee's allocation was cut sharply that year and it was simply not possible to continue the stateside program while protecting the core Federal programs included in the bill. Furthermore, I suspect that continued funding constraints and the growing cost of maintaining Federal land and facilities make it unlikely that the stateside program will be resurrected in the context of any annual appropriations bill in the near future. I hope this one-time appropriation of $100 million, to be allocated over a 4-year period, will enable the authorizing committee to identify a permanent funding source for that stateside program. The remaining $285 million provided in title V of the bill is for Federal acquisition projects. The specific acquisition projects to be funded would be determined through discussions between Congress and the administration but no funds would be available until the project list is approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. This process will enable us to target these funds for acquisitions that protect the most critically threatened resources and that reduce the cost of lands management by eliminating problematic inholdings. I do not intend to use these funds to create new parks, forests or refuges. Now, for the land management agencies themselves, the bill includes a number of positive features. For the National Park Service, the bill fully funds the administration's budget request for operation of the National Park System. This results in a 1 percent across-the-board funding increase for all park units. In addition, the bill includes a $24.8 million increase for special needs parks, an increase of $8.1 million over the budget request. These funds will be used to staff new parks, address critical operating shortfalls at park units with high visitation and protect threatened park resources. For the Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill includes an increase of $33.2 million over the fiscal year 1997 level for the operation and maintenance of our Nation's fish and wildlife refuges. This amounts to a $20 million increase over the budget request. The increase will enable the service to make a dent in its growing maintenance backlog and to address critical operating shortfalls at selected refuges. The bill provides $1.135 billion for the Bureau of Land Management, an increase of more than $40 million over the comparable fiscal year 1997 funding level. The amount provided includes increases over fiscal year 1997 of $12.5 million for wildland fire preparedness, and $18.2 for fire operations and for payments in lieu of taxes. Total funding for the Forest Service is $2.495 billion, an increase of $133 million above the comparable fiscal year 1997 enacted amount. Funds have been provided to produce 3.8 billion board feet of timber, consisting of 2.525 billion board feet from ``green'' sales, and 1.275 billion board feet from salvage. The funding provided also includes a $33.4 million increase over the administration's request for forest health-related programs, including $21 million to reduce the severe potential for catastrophic fire on our national forest lands. Through language in the bill and report, the committee has taken steps to eliminate needless duplicate planning processes, and to increase Forest Service accountability for land management planning and implementation of the Columbia Basin ecosystem assessment and other ecoregion assessments. Within the area of programs for Native Americans, the bill provides $2.1 billion for the Indian Health Service. This funding level is $72.7 million over the fiscal year 1997 level and 4.7 million over the President's request. The committee's recommendation includes $35 million for uncontrollable fixed costs related largely to hospital and clinic personnel, an increase of $15 million over the budget request. This increase will allow the Indian health service to maintain current levels of service. As I already noted, it fully funds the President's request for tribal priority allocations at $757.4 million, consistent with the budget agreement. This represents an increase of $76.5 million over fiscal year 1997 levels. Tribal priority allocations now make up 49 percent of the bureau's operating budget. Within those tribal priority allocations, approximately 30 percent is distributed by formula based on tribes meeting criteria for the following programs: The Indian Child Welfare Act, new tribes, Johnson O'Malley education assistance, housing improvement, road maintenance, contract support, and welfare assistance. The committee has included report language directing the continued allocation of these funds based on qualification with specific criteria. The committee has also included language in section 118 of the bill that directs the Bureau of Indian affairs to develop and present to the Congress by January 1, 1998, its recommendations for the allocation of the tribal priority allocations funding based on tribal economic wealth and need. Currently, TPA funds are distributed to the tribes based on a historical methodology dating to the 1930's when we had many fewer recognized tribes and when circumstances were very much different for both the tribes and the Federal budget. This old funding plan was further corrupted in the 1960's through the 1980's when the base TPA funds for certain tribes were increased significantly. This provision and a revised version that will be offered as an amendment will be the subject of extensive debate during the consideration of the bill unless agreement on the provision can be reached, an agreement which now seems to be within the range of possibility. It is, however, based on the very simple premise in an area of severe fiscal constraints, the distribution of scarce funds for tribal governments should be based upon an objective assessment of relative need, not the political power of individual tribes or the arbitrary accumulation of individual funding decisions over past years. The committee has included language in section 120 of the bill pursuant to which tribes that receive tribal priority allocation funding for this fiscal year must waive a claim of immunity, be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, and grant original jurisdiction of all civil actions involving the tribe to U.S. district courts. This provision will also be the subject of extensive and sometimes complex debate during the consideration of the bill. At its core, section 120 is an attempt to preserve the right of all Americans to have their grievances heard and decided in neutral courts. The Interior bill continues the Federal investment in key energy research and development programs. Fossil energy research and development is funded at $363.9 million, comparable to the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. Increases above the budget request are provided to sustain critical technology development programs intended to produce environmental benefits while improving energy efficiency. Mr. President, $627.4 million is provided for energy conservation programs, an increase of $58 million over the fiscal year 1997 level. Increases over current year levels include $17 million for transportation programs, $20 million for building research and development, and $16 million for industry programs. The bill provides $129 million for the weatherization program and $31.1 million for the State grant program, respective increases of $8 million and $2.1 million over current year levels. The bill does include a sale of $207.5 million worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to finance operation of that reserve. Though I had hoped not to sell oil to finance reserve operations in fiscal year 1998, the constraints of the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, the precedent set in the President's budget request, and the funding expectations raised by House action made it impossible to avoid the sale. While I remain open to alternatives to oil sales, it is with the recognition that any such alternative will likely have an adverse impact on other programs funded in this bill. Within the grouping of programs that I have identified as cultural lies the one agency that probably receives more attention per appropriated dollar than any other funded in this bill--the National Endowments for the Arts. The bill reported by the committee provides just over $100 million for the NEA, roughly the same as the fiscal year 1997 level. The fact that the committee has chosen to fund the NEA, which the House did not do, reflects the overwhelming support that the agency enjoys among committee members, both Republican and Democrat. Nevertheless, I anticipate a spirited debate about the future of the agency as we proceed with consideration of this bill, and when we go to conference with the House. Mr. President, putting this legislation together has been a tremendous challenge. While the fiscal constraints under which the subcommittee must operate make it impossible to please everyone, I do believe this bill represents a fair balance between the priorities of the Members of this body--both Republican and Democrat--and the priorities of the administration. I truly hope to have the support of my colleagues in voting for final passage, as well as their consideration on any amendments that may be offered during debate on the bill. Finally, I want to express my gratitude to the staff for their hard work on this bill. Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Martin Delgado, and Kevin Johnson of the subcommittee staff have worked many long hours to put this bill together, and I have greatly appreciated their advice, counsel, and perseverance. Hank Kashdan--our detailee from the Forest Service--has also been a great help, and we will be sorry to see him go at the end of the year. I also want to thank Chuck Berwick and Nina Nguyen of my personal staff for all their help on a number of critical issues in this bill. On Senator Byrd's staff, it has been a continued pleasure to work with Sue Masica, without whose expertise and institutional knowledge this bill would have been a lesser product. I also want to thank Carole Geagley of Senator Byrd's staff, as well as Lisa Mendelson who worked with Senator Byrd's staff as a detailee from the Park Service. I would be remiss in not extending my thanks to the full committee staff for their help, cooperation, and guidance, particularly the majority and minority staff directors, Steve Cortese and Jim English. With that, I will defer to Senator Byrd. Before doing that, I want to say publicly once again how much I have learned, working as subcommittee chairman, from his vast experience, his guidance and, perhaps even more significant, in the last few years his personal friendship. His technical knowledge of the appropriations process, his appreciation for its nuances, and his respect for the entire Senate have been invaluable to me both in producing the bill and, I hope, in becoming a better Senator. At the same time, his advocacy on behalf of his colleagues has been invaluable to many on that side of the aisle and, I think I can say, to this side of the aisle as well. It has been a wonderful partnership. I hope we can continue it for a long time to come. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before I begin my opening statement on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] be heard in order to introduce a bill and briefly to discuss it.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the issue involved in this amendment is extremely simple. If you believe that the regulation of our public schools is best conducted through hundreds of pages of detailed regulations, imposed by the Department of Education in Washington, DC, on all school districts alike, you will vote against this amendment. If you believe that teachers, parents, principals, and elected school board members in the thousands of school districts across the country can best determine how money coming from the Federal Government ought to be spent to advance their children's education, you will vote for the amendment. No State will lose money under the terms of this amendment. Every State will gain money under the terms of this amendment, because the administrative costs, amounting to more than a billion dollars, will no longer be withheld by the Department of Education in Washington, DC, but will be transferred to the local school districts. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I find it regrettable but not surprising that the expressions against the amendment which we just adopted are based on the proposition that all knowledge with respect to educational priorities is lodged right here among the 100 Members of this body, and, if not here, certainly no closer to our students than the Department of Education's bureaucrats here in Washington, DC; that if we are to allow local school board members, teachers, and parents to decide how they would like to spend the money on the education of their children setting different priorities in different school districts, they will, of course, waste the money, ignore our children, and use it to build swimming pools. Well, Mr. President, I wonder why it is that the voters are so wise when they pick us and so foolish when they pick local school board members. That is the real issue here. Do we trust the people who are running our schools to run them properly, to care for the education of their children and to do a better job than Washington, DC, bureaucrats? Fifty-one of you voted that we trust our educators.

Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms and Senator Coats be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.