[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18595-S18601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
1977, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1977) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 12, 1995.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would you state the conditions under which 
this conference report is being debated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the Senate considers the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill, time 
will be limited to 6 hours, 3 of which shall be under the control of 
the Senator from Washington, or his designee, of which 20 minutes shall 
be under the control of the Senator from West Virginia; and 3 hours 
under the control of Senators Bumpers and Bradley, or their designees.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senate is no considering the 
conference report on H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Department of the 
Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This conference 
report and accompanying statement of the managers appeared in the 
Congressional Record on December 12, 1995, on pages H14288 through 
H14310. This is the third conference agreement. The first conference 
report was recommitted by the House on September 28 due primarily to 
objections to the conference adoption of the Senate provisions on 
mining, which lifted the existing moratorium on issuing new patents. 
The second conference report was recommitted again by the House on 
November 15 due to objections to mining and Tongass National Forest 
concerns.
  The agreements before the Senate today total $12.235 billion in 
discretionary budget authority. The outlay scoring totals $13.210 
billion. The budget authority and outlay figures are precisely at the 
602(b) allocation levels. The recommendations of this conference 
agreement represent a total decrease below the President's budget 
request of $1.7 billion in budget authority and of $949 million in 
outlays.
  The conference report represents difficult choices and real cuts in 
spending--without scorekeeping adjustments--of $1.4 billion below the 
fiscal year 1995 level or a reduction of 10 percent. Interior bill 
agencies do not share equally in the 10-percent reduction. For 
instance, the land management agencies are reduced by 14 percent; 
cultural activities are reduced by 15 percent; the Indian programs are 
reduced by 4 percent; and the Department of Energy agencies are reduced 
by 10 percent.
  The Interior appropriations bill is a complex bill, providing funding 
for 40 agencies with very diverse programs. This conference agreement 
reflects a meshing of the budget resolution considerations, the 
administration's fiscal year 1996 priorities, the priorities of the 
Senate and House, and the concerns of individual Members. For example, 
the Congress and the administration place a high priority on the 
National Park Service and the Indian programs. Therefore, the National 
Park Service and the Indian programs are reduced significantly less 
than other programs and agencies within the bill.
  Our conference addressed a considerable number of differences. There 
were approximately 900 items in disagreement between the House and 
Senate Interior appropriations bills. As in the past, this bill has 
received abundant attention and sparked debate within the Congress and 
the administration. This conference report represents an earnest effort 
to address many of the administration's objections to this year's 
Interior actions.
  There may be programs which Senators would like to see funded at 
higher levels. On many, I agree. Certainly, the administration has 
indicated that it views funding for some programs as inadequate. 
However, I would remind these Senators and the administration of the 
funding constraints for this bill and the difficult choices that had to 
be made. The conferees had to fund programs within an allocation that 
was 10 percent less than was available for the bill in fiscal year 
1995. For every program that was reduced less than 10 percent, other 
programs had to be reduced by more than 10 percent.
  Mr. President, I would like to highlight some of the items in the 
conference agreement:


                            indian programs

  Programs for native Americans and Alaska Natives are funded at 
$3,652,895,000 within the bill. Within the funding constraints, high 
priority was placed on the health needs of native Americans funded 
through the Indian Health Service and on Bureau of Indian Affairs 
funded elementary and secondary education programs.
  The conferees restored $111.5 million above the Senate level to the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, resulting in an overall reduction for BIA of 
$159.6 million, or 9 percent, below the fiscal year 1995 level for BIA 
activities. Funds were restored primarily to tribal priority 
allocations, which fund tribal government services.
  Additionally, $25 million has been added to the previous conference 
agreement for the Indian Health Service [IHS]. This brings the IHS 1 
percent above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level.


                            land management

  Although the land management agencies have been decreased overall by 
14 percent from the current level, the conferees have attempted to 
protect the operational base of the land management agencies as much as 
possible:
  National Park Service: 0 percent.
  Fish and Wildlife Service: -3 percent.
  Bureau of Land Management: -5 percent.
  Forest Service: -5 percent.
  To assist with the growing recreation demands on the agencies in this 
bill, a pilot recreation fee proposal is included.
  The construction accounts for the land management agencies have 
decreased $85 million in total---20 percent. The majority of the 
construction projects involve the completion of on-going projects and 
the restoration or rehabilitation of existing facilities.
  Overall funding for land acquisition for the land management agencies 
totals $140 million which is 40 percent below the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations level. There are no earmarks for specific projects. 
However, the administration must obtain congressional approval for any 
projects to be funded.


                      National Biological Service

  The Interior's biological research is placed under the Director of 
the U.S. Geological Survey. Funding of $137 million is provided for the 
research activities, which is a reduction of $35.7 million below the 
current level.


                            Mining Agencies

  The conference report includes a compromise between the Senate and 
House provisions on mining patents. 

[[Page S18596]]
The conference agreement continues the existing moratorium on the 
issuance of mining patents as contained in the fiscal year 1995 
Interior appropriations bill. The conference agreement also contains 
provisions that the Secretary of the Interior must process within 5 
years 90 percent of the patents grandfathered in the current moratorium 
and provides authority for third-party mineral examiners paid for by 
patent applicants.
  The mining and minerals related agencies are collectively funded at 9 
percent below the fiscal year 1995 level. The Bureau of Mines is 
eliminated and the essential functions of the Bureau of Mines are moved 
to the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau 
of Land Management.
  Last year's ban on Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] offshore oil and gas 
leasing continues.


                          Department of Energy

  The Energy Conservation Program is funded at $553 million. The low-
income weatherization program is funded at $114 million.
  Fossil energy research and development is funded at $377 million, a 
decrease of 14 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level, not including 
the Bureau of Mines.


                           Cultural Agencies

  We have made a concerted effort to address the critical repair and 
renovation needs of the cultural organizations, such as the National 
Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution and the Kennedy Center, in 
order to fulfill our primary responsibility of protecting their 
collections and structures. Reductions to operating accounts, while 
unavoidable, have been kept relatively small in recognition of the wide 
array of public services which in large part define the mission of 
these agencies.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is provided $99.5 million and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities is provided $110 million. The 
Senate and House managers differ with respect to the continuation or 
termination of the Endowments. The managers on the part of the Senate 
support continued funding for the Endowments and believe the 
controversial issues surrounding these two agencies are ones which 
should be addressed by the legislative committees of jurisdiction in 
the House and Senate.
  In short, we have done the best we can with severely limited 
resources, concentrating our efforts on those agencies that rely on the 
Congress for the bulk, if not all, of their support and on those 
agencies that are of high priority to the administration and the 
Congress.
  I have a couple of clarifying items relating to the Interior 
conference report that have been cleared with Senator Byrd, the ranking 
member of the Interior Subcommittee; Mr. Regula, chairman of the House 
Interior Subcommittee; and Mr. Yates, ranking member of the House 
Interior Subcommittee.
  In the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report, 
the managers referred to the ``existing hospital authority'' in 
American Samoa. This reference is to the institutional entity, and does 
not preclude changes to the composition or the structuring of the 
authority, particularly if the changes strengthen the management of 
health care in American Samoa.
  The managers for both the House and the Senate agree that funds 
provided in this bill for cooperative conservation agreements may be 
used for the 4(d) rule to ease endangered species land use restrictions 
on landowners, whether large or small.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I wish to thank Senator 
Byrd, the ranking member of our Interior Subcommittee and the ranking 
member of our full Appropriations Committee. In addition, I would like 
to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, who have 
provided their assistance in forming this bill. Also, I wish to express 
my appreciation to Chairman Regula and his staff and to Mr. Yates and 
his staff.
  I want to recognize and to voice my appreciation to the Interior 
Subcommittee staff as well. On my staff are Cherie Cooper, Kathleen 
Wheeler, Bruce Evans, and Ginny James. I also wish to thank Sue Masica, 
who is Senator Byrd's Interior Subcommittee assistant.
  Mr. President, on a less formal basis, I would like to call the 
attention of my colleagues to the differences between this bill and the 
bill that originally passed the Senate. I remind my colleagues that 
final passage of this bill in the Senate was by a vote of 92 to 6. That 
overwhelming and bipartisan vote, I am convinced, was due to the 
magnificent cooperation I had from my distinguished colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd, and other members of the subcommittee. We 
attempted to follow the tradition of many years and deal with this 
bill, including all of its controversial elements, with the least 
possible partisanship, and I believe that we succeeded.
  This contrasts rather considerably with the way in which this bill 
was treated in the House of Representatives. But I do wish to say, to 
emphasize to all Members of both parties, to the extent that there are 
differences in this bill from the bill which originally passed the 
Senate, those differences are slightly to increase some accounts and to 
attempt in part to meet objections on the part of the administration.
  It is very clear to me, as I speak to my colleagues at this point, 
that we have not sufficiently satisfied the administration to have a 
guarantee that this bill will be signed. Nevertheless, as compared to 
the original bill, which passed by a vote of 92 to 6 in this body, we 
have made a number of substantive gestures in the direction of the 
objections of the administration. For example, this bill includes 
budget authority of $111 million more than the bill which originally 
passed the Senate. Primarily that extra money goes to various Indian 
activities which were the most controversial elements of the bill as it 
was debated in the Senate originally and again goes at least part way 
to meeting objections on the part of the administration.
  Second, the mining patent provisions, while I suspect not 
satisfactory to all Members, are closer to the present law and to the 
moratorium that was passed by the House of Representatives than was the 
original Senate provision which was adopted by a very closely divided 
vote.
  In addition, the language relating to the Tongass National Forest is 
mitigated to a certain extent to meet objections on the part of the 
administration. These two items, not at all incidentally, Mr. 
President, were the two items that created the greatest degree of 
opposition in the House of Representatives and caused two referrals 
back to the conference committee after the original conference 
committee report was adopted.
  In several additional areas in which there is substantive legislative 
language in this bill, it has been modified at least modestly and in 
part to meet the objections of the administration.

  I want personally to urge the administration seriously to consider 
approving this bill. It will provide considerably better and more 
assured support for the wide range of activities covered by this 
Interior Department appropriations bill than will any continuing 
resolution carried over an extended period of time.
  As we speak here on the last day of the current continuing 
resolution, these agencies are operating on the lower figure contained 
in either the House or Senate bill. In almost every case, as a 
consequence, the bill that we have before us funds those agencies more 
generously and with a greater degree of certainty.
  So I ask my colleagues to approve a bill that is literally easier for 
most of them to approve than was the one they voted in favor of by a 
vote of 92 to 6, and I suggest strongly to the administration that in 
the present context it is unlikely to get a bill more favorable to its 
concerns. If, as, and when there is a final budget agreement, there may 
be some additional changes, but, of course, they could be taken care of 
as a part of that budget agreement itself.
  In any event, Mr. President, I strongly suggest to my colleagues 
support for and passage of this bill this afternoon.
  With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
I ask that it be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 

[[Page S18597]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
designated to control time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to 
myself.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill.
  One year ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly, with strong bipartisan 
support, to pass a California Desert Protection Act and establish the 
Mojave National Preserve. This act, the Desert Protection Act, 
culminated an 8-year-long battle in the Congress to protect some of 
America's most spectacular and environmentally sensitive wilderness 
areas, in particular the Mojave National Preserve, often called the 
``crown jewel'' of the act.
  California has about 25 million acres of desert. This act essentially 
protected around 6 million of those acres, created the Joshua Tree 
National Park, Death Valley National Mark, and the East Mojave 
Preserve.
  The congressional process included literally years of research, 
public hearings, debate, and every possible consideration and 
compromise to safeguard the interests of property owners and businesses 
in the region. The bill passed.
  Now, rather than carrying out the intent of the legislation, which 
was to have a national preserve with hunting, which some of the 
opponents wanted, under National Park Service management, this bill 
contains an effort to destroy the Mojave National Preserve. All other 
national parks are being funded. Yet this conference report singles out 
the newest unit of the National Park System for budget cuts. The 
President had $2.6 million in his budget for National Park Service 
management of this new park.
  The conference report provides no funding for the National Park 
Service to manage the Mojave National Preserve. Instead, it turns 
management back over to the BLM, the agency which managed the East 
Mojave so poorly before enactment of the desert bill and provided the 
whole enthusiasm for creating a national park. And the bill also 
provides a totally inadequate amount for the BLM to do the job. The BLM 
was criticized when it had $1.7 million to run this area. It did not do 
it adequately with that amount. And now there is no money for the Park 
Service, with the exception of the $500,000 for planning.
  I believe this is contrary to the wishes of the people of California. 
Included in a statewide poll, conducted very recently and just released 
yesterday, were some new poll numbers with respect to the views of 
Californians and this park. Statewide, 74 percent of all Californians 
opposed a limit on the Park Service budget for management of this park. 
Statewide, 84.6 percent of Californians today support keeping the 
Mojave a national park. In every region of the State, in this new 
statewide poll, people overwhelmingly supported keeping the Mojave as a 
national park. Only 9 percent of the people of the State of California 
in this Field Institute poll oppose the park.
  I want to emphasize that the local communities and businesses--this 
is a very sparsely populated area--and the Barstow, Baker, and Newberry 
Springs Chamber of Commerce have welcomed the Park Service to the 
Mojave and support the new park. Let me read what they have to say.
  The Barstow Area Chamber of Commerce says: ``The National Park 
Service is graciously welcomed to Barstow and to the Mojave Desert. The 
chamber hopes that the needed funds will be appropriated in a timely 
manner so that quality facilities and services will be accomplished as 
soon as possible by the Park Service's personnel.''
  The Barstow Development Corp. writes: ``The park will be beneficial 
to the majority of business persons in Barstow and to Barstow's 
economy, therefore being a positive influence to most of the citizens 
in Barstow.''
  The Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce says: ``Newberry Springs is 
proud to be so near this unusual and wonderful area. Let it be known 
that we highly endorse the new Superintendent and staff and we pledge 
our support and cooperation to this project.''
  Little do they know, this bill is taking it all away.
  The Baker Chamber of Commerce says: ``Our community is the gateway to 
the East Mojave Preserve. Our community has embraced the changes that 
the Preserve has brought. In accord appropriate funding for the East 
Mojave Preserve would be duly appreciated.''
  The Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union 
Tribune, and the San Francisco Chronicle have all called on the 
President to veto the Interior appropriations bill because of its 
attack on the East Mojave.
  Let me read just a few of the editorial headlines.
  The San Diego Union Tribune, December 3: ``Starved for funds; 
Congressman victimizes Mojave Preserve.''
  San Bernardino Sun, a paper in the area, November 18: ``Lewis 
Confuses Park Issue with Flap Over Sheep.''
  San Francisco Chronicle, November 17: ``While they are at it, they 
should strip all environmental riders, including the defunding of the 
Mojave National Preserve in California.''
  San Jose Mercury News, September 25: ``Moan on the range; Republicans 
Resume the Destruction of Public Lands.'' ``In an insult to California, 
the bill, this time, appropriated $1 for the management of the new 
Mojave National Preserve, a way of undoing congressional establishment 
of the park last year.''
  Nobody should think it is anything other than just that.
  Los Angeles Times, Friday, September 22: ``Clinton Should Reject 
Sabotage of Desert Act; he needs California and California needs 
protective law.''
  San Diego Union, again: ``Desert Mischief; Veto the Interior 
Appropriations Bill.''
  San Francisco Chronicle, again: ``Veto the Environmental Wrecking 
Legislation.''
  If it counts for anything at all, these are the views of the people 
of California. Eighty-four percent of the people support the Mojave 
National Preserve. The chambers of commerce of the small communities 
right in the area support the funding of the Mojave Preserve. Every 
major newspaper in the State supports the funding of the Mojave 
Preserve. Yet, today, we have a bill before us that completely undoes 
the intent of the last Congress to create what is a beautiful national 
park and what is a prime and beautiful desert area.
  The BLM is neither capable nor mandated to manage the Mojave National 
Preserve. As I say, even with a budget of $1.7 billion, three times the 
$599,000 the conference has now given to the BLM, the BLM did not 
adequately manage this 1.4-million-acre area.
  Without adequate funding for management of the Mojave, not only park 
visitors but those who live and work in the region will suffer. 
According to the National Park Service, permits for grazing 
improvements will not be processed and issued. Requests for rights-of-
way will not be processed and approved. Mining plans of operation will 
not be processed and approved. Search and rescue and emergency medical 
services will be dangerously underfunded. Trash collection, restroom 
maintenance, and any hazardous spill cleanup will be cut back or 
eliminated. The visitors center and camp grounds may be closed. Park 
resources will receive minimal protection, like protection to Indian 
hieroglyphics on canyon walls, like protection to the 900 species of 
flora and fauna.
  It limits the funding for development of a comprehensive management 
plan to $500,000, far less than what it typically costs to develop a 
plan for a new national park. It limits the amount of time the Park 
Service has to develop the management plan. The California Desert 
Protection Act required a 3-year planning process and provided for 
extensive public participation. That is what the community wanted. If 
the Park Service is to satisfy the conferees' conditions for taking 
over management of the Mojave next year, that is completing the 
management plan, the agency will have to expedite the process and limit 
public participation. That is directly contrary to the intent of the 
Desert Protection Act. The act specifically mandated an inclusive 
planning process to ensure consideration of the views of the 
landowners, the ranchers, local government, and others. 

[[Page S18598]]

  This language is unprecedented. Never before has Congress required 
the National Park Service to develop a comprehensive plan before it can 
manage a new park. No one can tell me this is not just to kill the 
action taken by a majority. Let me say I would never do this to any 
Member or to any project that was approved by Congress--stand in front 
of it and say, all right, after 8 years, more than a dozen hearings, 
this is authorized, but we are going to kill it because we are not 
going to fund it.
  Some have suggested that the National Park Service has not adequately 
ensured the continuation of human uses and has jeopardized wildlife 
recovery efforts. This is a complete misrepresentation of the Park 
Service's record in the Mojave.
  Let me set the record straight. The Park Service has been doing a 
good job of managing the Mojave. In the last year, the Park Service has 
improved visitors' services. It has opened a visitors center in Baker. 
It has improved law enforcement; it has helped curtail illegal 
activities such as closing down two drug labs in the desert that were 
operating in the area. The Park Service has improved resource 
protection. Visitation to the area has increased significantly, 
bringing additional businesses to the surrounding communities.
  As the Las Vegas Review Journal reported last month, Little Nipton, a 
small community, has not seen so much activity since its heyday in the 
early years of the century. Nipton is one of the entry points to the 
new Mojave National Preserve. Gerald Freeman, the owner of the Hotel 
Nipton, reports:

       Since the National Park Service has taken over management 
     jurisdiction, both the volume and quality of visitation is 
     up. For example, the Hotel Nipton occupancy is up between 80 
     and 100 percent a year. In contrast to what I would call a 
     condescending, indifferent presence of the Bureau of Land 
     Management over the last 35 years, the National Park Service 
     seems genuinely concerned with the welfare of the region. 
     They appear to me--and others out here--to be a comforting 
     and constructive presence. I urge you to support the National 
     Park Service in its mission in the Mojave National Preserve 
     and to do everything to ensure adequate funding is available 
     to maintain the viability of their presence. I am convinced 
     the rewards will be of great and lasting benefit to the 
     region including a strong and vibrant business all around; 
     greatly improving job opportunities for locals and others 
     moving into the area; a major upgrade in the perception of 
     the Mojave in the world at large; thus establishing a major 
     source of pride and revenue for San Bernardino County and the 
     State of California.

  I cannot understand--we have three major chambers of commerce. We 
have people writing in, saying visitation has gone up, it is better 
than it was. Two drug labs have been closed. Yet because of the pique 
of some on the House Appropriations Committee, we defund it. I cannot 
understand this.
  This is not just and fair public policy, particularly when we have 84 
percent of the people of the State in support of keeping the Mojave a 
national park according to a poll done as recently as last week. I 
hazard a guess that there is probably no new park in America that would 
get that kind of public support and yet have this body and the other 
body defund it in its first year of operation. It is bizarre. I do not 
understand.
  Let me give another example, the small little restaurant called the 
Bun Boy in Baker. Owner Willis Heron writes:

       I have lived in and been in business in Baker, CA for over 
     40 years. I write to express my strong support to fully fund 
     the National Park Service. Not adequately funding the 
     National Park Service is a disservice to the thousands of 
     people living in the towns of Baker, Barstow, Needles, and 
     Nipton and to the County of San Bernardino. The preserve and 
     the local communities will suffer if the proper funding is 
     withheld.

  Again, I cannot understand it. The support is there. Roxanne Lang, a 
resident of Nipton says:

       The National Park Service has done more for our local area 
     in the last nine months without much funding than the BLM did 
     in ten years I have been here. The National Park Service has 
     managed to eliminate some undesirables--i.e. drug dealers--
     come into our schools and educate the children living in the 
     desert about the environment; and give locals a generally 
     good feeling that we have protection.

  This body defunds it. I do not understand it. The Overson family, the 
largest private property owner and ranchers in the preserve, also 
report that management is much improved under the Park Service. Let me 
read their statement:

       In the past 7 years under the Bureau of Land Management, 
     crucial water replacement projects, pipelines, tanks, and 
     troughs, have been put on hold. It has come to the point of 
     having to get an attorney to sue the BLM to do the 
     environmental assessments on the projects before funding will 
     be allocated. Since the National Park Service took over 
     management of the desert, many changes are apparent. We have 
     been able to work with management for a yes or no answer. 
     Projects are being worked on.
       The effects of the rangers are also apparent. They have 
     wrote numerous speeding tickets, deterred drunk drivers, 
     closed an illegal drug lab, and have policed this isolated 
     area. Because of these reasons, we feel we would be better 
     off under Park Service management.

  That is from the largest property owner in the Mojave Preserve, and 
this bill defunds it. I do not understand it.
  Mr. President, Congress established the national preserve. There was 
already a concession to the opposition who wanted a national preserve 
with hunting. They got their national preserve with hunting, but under 
the Park Service so the environmental protections could be provided.
  Guess what they did? They then turned around and defunded it--
something that has 84 percent support throughout the entire State of 
California after the first year in operation. It is absolutely bizarre.
  I have spoken to the administration. I am convinced they will veto 
this bill, and one of the reasons they will veto this bill is this kind 
of subrogation of the will of Congress.
  It is selfish, it is vain, it is wrong, it is not good policy, and it 
should not happen.
  I thank the President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the words of the 
Senator from California, and I must say I have some sympathy for her 
position on this issue and understand how she is upset. She mentioned 
that she was concerned about the preservation of Indian hieroglyphics 
in the park there, and I also have a lot of knowledge of native 
American issues. I understand that.
  I wish that the Senator from California had voted to restore some of 
the funding for live Indians, the live Indians which Senator Domenici, 
Senator Inouye, and myself tried to restore. We tried to restore some 
of the draconian cuts that were made.
  Native Americans are deeply concerned about preserving hieroglyphics. 
But they are also concerned about preserving their ability to manage 
their land, child welfare and family services, et cetera.
  I do not mean it as a criticism of the Senator from California. I 
must say from listening to her somewhat emotional remarks, I hope that 
we can sit down and get some kind of better treatment of what is 
obviously a very important cultural and environmental area in the State 
of California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
with how little funding was restored by the conferees to native 
American programs in H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
bill for Interior and related agencies.

  During our consideration of the bill in August, the Senate rejected a 
Domenici-McCain-Inouye amendment to restore $200 million to address 
what I believed was a draconian cut in funding for tribal governments. 
I say ``draconian'' because I know no other word to describe a cut that 
would have reduced last year's tribal funding by more than 25 percent. 
I withheld from offering further floor amendments after the chairman of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee assured me on the floor of 
this Senate that he would support significant restorations to these 
tribal accounts in conference.
  Mr. President, we now have before us the results of the conference 
committee's action. While I appreciate the sincere efforts of the 
members of the conference committee, I do not consider the amounts 
restored to tribal accounts significant enough. The conference bill 
maintains disproportionately deep cuts in critical funding needed for 
essential services on Indian Reservations. I believe the funding 
priorities reflected in this bill breach our 

[[Page S18599]]
Nation's treaty obligations to tribal governments.
  The conference bill provides $654 million for tribal priority 
allocations, nearly a 9\1/2\-percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 
funding level of $722 million. This nine and one-half percent reduction 
will gut basic tribal government operations on Reservations, where the 
spending priorities are set by tribally elected officials, not Federal 
bureaucrats or Members of Congress who are far removed from reservation 
realities. Let me be clear--the tribal funds slashed by 9\1/2\-percent 
under this bill are under the direct control of tribal governments, not 
Federal bureaucrats. These cuts will not reduce the Federal 
bureaucracy. They will, however, sharply reduce tribal services and 
employment on Indian reservations.
  Tribes have used these funds to deliver critically needed services to 
Reservation residents, such as criminal law enforcement and public 
safety efforts, elderly housing improvement and repair, child abuse 
protection and intervention services, adult vocational training, 
natural resource protection, child welfare and family services, land 
management, reservation road maintenance, administrative support 
activities, and other essential tribal government programs and 
operations. Tribal governments spend these funds on social workers, 
police officers, teachers, jailers, bookkeepers, and auditors. They 
make emergency home repairs. They fight fires. They clear and maintain 
roadways. They patrol land and water to deter poaching and to protect 
natural resources. Tribes rely on these funds to meet basic 
governmental obligations to their citizens.
  In addition to the elimination of many essential services, these cuts 
will cause many reservation jobs to disappear. Since many reservations 
are in remote and impoverished locations with unemployment rates 10 to 
20 times the national rate, tribal governments typically are the 
largest, and often the only, employers in Indian Country. Consequently, 
the 9\1/2\-percent cut in tribal funding from fiscal year 1995 levels 
will cause great hardship for many Indian households whose breadwinners 
will have no choice other than to move away from their reservation 
communities to seek employment.
  Mr. President, the American people have spoken--they don't want new 
taxes, they don't want the Federal Government to grow, and they don't 
want deficit spending today that will make their children, and their 
children's children, pay and pay for years to come. I stand with those 
of us in the Senate who say enough is enough, that Federal funding must 
be reduced, not just restrained.
  My problem with the Interior spending bill is not with its overall 
reductions. My problem is with how the conferees set their priorities 
within the overall reductions. Earlier this year I asked the 
Congressional Research Service to analyze Federal spending trends on 
programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives over the past 20 
years, and compare it to Federal spending for other Americans. The CRS 
found a steadily growing gap between what the Federal Government spends 
on Indians and non-Indians that began to widen in 1985. Since 1985, per 
capita Federal spending for Indians has fallen far behind per capita 
Federal spending on non-Indians. I am convinced there are many accounts 
in the Interior bill which are significantly lower national priorities 
than these tribal programs. Funding for these lesser priorities should 
have been reduced or eliminated in order to protect Indian funding.
  My position on this is consistent with the Budget Resolution, which 
recommended to the Appropriations Committees that Indian program 
funding be held at 1995 levels and that the necessary reductions in 
budget authority be taken from other accounts. The conference committee 
chose to disregard these priorities and instead made Indian programs 
within the Interior Department bear a strikingly disproportionate share 
of the cuts.
  Mr. President, many years ago, our predecessors in the U.S. Senate 
ratified treaties made with tribal governments in exchange for land and 
peace. The U.S. Constitution calls these treaties the highest law of 
our land. Neither the passage of time nor the changing of the guard has 
eroded our legal obligations as a Nation towards Native Americans. In 
my view, H.R. 1977 turns our national priorities upside-down, and 
places a stain on our national honor.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against 
adoption of H.R. 1977, as proposed by the conference committee, because 
it seriously shortchanges Indian tribes and violates our Nation's 
treaty obligations to Native Americans.
  Mr. President, traditionally the Interior appropriations bill has 
been loaded with ear marks. Although this year's bill represents an 
improvement over past year's bills, it still contains many items that 
raise questions.
  I want to state that these questions should not be interpreted in any 
way as to call into question the integrity of the bill's managers. I 
know they have worked hard and deserve much credit for the work they 
have done. But as I have routinely stated on the floor of the Senate, 
when earmarks and other specific provisions that have never been 
considered by either the full House or Senate are added to bills in 
conference then my right as a Senator to amend those provisions is 
denied me. That is wrong. The people of Arizona expect me to act to 
prevent their hard-earned tax dollars from being sent to Washington and 
then squandered on projects that have never seen the light of day. That 
is why I raise these issues.
  First, let me note my strong concern regarding this legislation's 
treatment of native Americans.
  I also want to raise some other issues I would hope the managers 
would elaborate on.
  Amendment No. 2 in the conference report contains the following 
earmark:
  ``Of which $2,000,000 shall be available for assessment of the 
mineral potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to P.L. 96-487 . . 
.''
  Perhaps the Senator from Washington could explain the necessity for 
this provision being added in conference?
  I would like to know why is this provision being added in conference 
having not been considered by either body in an amendable form?
  Is there any reason this provision could not wait to be added to some 
authorizing language?
  I say to the Senator from Washington that it is terribly aggravating 
to those of us who represent the citizens of our State who find these 
provisions added in a conference report because they are not amendable, 
nor do we have the opportunity to vote up or down.
  Amendment No. 47 is particularly interesting. The House language 
originally was one sentence:
  ``For expenses necessary for the orderly closure of the Bureau of 
Mines, $87,000,000.''
  The Senate struck that language and added a paragraph with more 
specifics.
  However, the conference report now contains a long list of specific 
provisions detailing office closures and transfers in specific cities 
and locations. I am very concerned about these new details, added 
behind closed door, that I am now expected to vote on. The language 
notes certain office in Pennsylvania and Oregon.
  I would like the managers of this bill to explain the meaning and 
purpose of this large amendment.
  Amendment No. 84 deals with the Presidio. It is my understanding that 
this historic old Army base has been ordered closed as a result of the 
BRAC process. However, this bill contains language appropriating funds 
to keep this facility, or at least parts of this facility open. The 
committee also notes that separate legislation detailing the future of 
the Presidio may be considered by the Congress later this or next year.
  Based on that fact, why are we appropriating funds for the Presidio 
at this time?
  I am very concerned about the creation of the Presidio trust fund. In 
Arizona we closed Williams Air Force Base. We have not--nor do I think 
there will ever be created--a Williams trust fund. This is an issue 
that deserves much consideration and debate. I would hope that we would 
not be paving the road for the creation of the trust fund in this bill.
  Therefore, I want to ask the question, if such funds must be 
appropriated, should they not be subject to authorization or to passage 
of the Presidio trust fund bill?
  I also have questions regarding amendments Nos. 101 and 104. These 

[[Page S18600]]
  amendments apparently place an across-the-board prohibition on the 
Forest Service. After the bill mandates this sweeping prohibition, it 
contains one specific exception to this new rule. The language added in 
conference states, ``* * * other than the Regional Office for Region 5 
for the Forest Service, from San Francisco to excess military property 
at Mare Island, Vallejo, California.'' Perhaps the managers can explain 
this unique exception.
  I think, if I could seek the answers to those questions from the 
manager of the bill, I might have a better understanding of this 
conference report.
  Mr. Gorton addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has raised 
legitimate questions about several of these amendments. I will prepare 
answers to them--we have two other Members waiting to speak--and try to 
answer them properly after those two Members have had their 
opportunity.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I do 
believe this bill is a significant improvement. I do not believe there 
is a great deal of the traditional earmarks and add-ons in conference. 
I wish there were none.
  I realize the Senator from Washington and the ranking member have 
very difficult decisions to make and that there are enormous pressures 
on them in certain areas to sometimes clean up certain aspects of the 
legislation that has not been brought up at the proper time. But I 
would like, as I say for the benefit of my friend from Washington--
amendment No. 2, which is $2 million available for assessments of 
mineral potential of public lands in Alaska; amendment No. 47, all of 
the long list of specific provisions which are associated with the 
closure of the Bureau of Mines; amendment No. 84, about the Presidio; 
and amendments Nos. 101 and 104, which place across-the-board 
prohibition on the Forest Service, and then there is one specific 
exception.
  I thank my colleague from the State of Washington. I understand it 
may take some time. Since this is a very large piece of legislation, it 
may take some time to adequately address those concerns.
  Again, I congratulate the Senator from Washington on doing a very 
sincere and difficult job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded such 
time as I may consume from that of Senator Bumpers, who controls time 
on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from 
Missouri, the reason I stood before him is because we had a Democrat, 
Senator Feinstein, and then traditionally we are going back and forth. 
So I waited for Senator McCain. That is the traditional way we have 
done things for the last few days. I assume we would go back to a 
Republican next.
  Mr. President, I first want to say about the two managers of this 
bill, the senior Senator from Washington and the senior Senator from 
West Virginia, I have worked with them on this bill and other matters 
over the years. I have found them both to be the best.
  Senator Byrd's history, of course, is replete with his knowledge of 
procedures. Of course this bill is a bill that he has managed for many 
years. But let me just say about the senior Senator from Washington, 
the manager of the bill this year, he has spent a great deal of time on 
this legislation. He has had tremendous difficulties. I participated 
with him, trying to work out some of the differences. We have had the 
bill before the Senate, or the conference report, three times, as I 
understand it. So, I recognize the problems the manager has had, how 
hard it has been. It is not a perfect bill. I recognize that. My 
criticism of the legislation does not go to the managers of the bill 
but, rather, to the content of the legislation and the fact, in these 
times of very strict budget constraints, sometimes we disagree with the 
priorities.
  Having said that, I say this bill is extremely important to the State 
of Nevada. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the Bureau of Land Management--there are many important aspects of this 
legislation that have a direct impact on the State of Nevada. I am not 
going to spend a lot of time today talking about the things about which 
I just spoke, even though, with the Park Service, the busiest entity in 
the entire Park Service is the Lake Mead Recreational Area. Last year, 
there were almost 10 million visitors to that very fragile facility. It 
is an example of where we are not really taking care of our parks in 
this country. Lake Mead needs tremendous renovation because of the 
massive numbers of people who use that facility. The people who use 
Lake Mead do not use it just during the daylight hours. It is a 24-hour 
recreation facility. Because of the shift work that takes place 
throughout southern Nevada, people are coming on that facility all 
times of the day and night. It needs a lot of work. That money, that 
would lead to the work being done, the renovations being done, 
improvements being done on that recreation area, is not in this bill.
  I do not criticize anyone in particular, other than to say that our 
park system is really in a bad state of repair. It is no better 
illustrated than the Lake Mead Recreation Area.
  Today I am going to spend my time talking about a part of this bill 
that I think is really disturbing, and that is the Endangered Species 
Act and how it is dealt with. First of all, this conference report does 
not adequately provide funding for effective implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act. That is important because, whether you are a 
proponent of the Endangered Species Act or whether you believe the act 
should not be in existence, the fact of the matter is that if it is 
inadequately funded it does not work for anyone.
  Second, this conference report maintains the moratorium on listing of 
threatened and endangered species. I object to these provisions. I do 
it, not to be an obstructionist, but to enable the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in preserving and protecting species that are in a state of 
imminent extinction. In sum, the Fish and Wildlife Service must be able 
to carry out the noble goals of saving species from extinction.

  I am a ranking member of the authorizing committee that will, 
hopefully next year, participate in reauthorizing the Endangered 
Species Act. I have worked with the junior Senator from the State of 
Idaho in coming up with legislation. He has introduced a bill that I do 
not support, but I am confident that we can come up with legislation 
that meets the goals of both of us. If we cannot, I will introduce a 
bill sometime next spring, and, hopefully in the near future, we will 
be able to stand in this Chamber and work out our difference. We need 
to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act.
  What is taking place in this legislation, in this conference report, 
is not the appropriate way to do business. I remind this body, as a 
significant number of witnesses pointed out before our committee, 
extinction is irrevocable. Extinction is forever. It is important that 
we understand that these are not problems that we can go back and deal 
with later. Once there is an extinction it is over with. It is over 
with for good. To deny the Department of Interior the funds needed to 
ensure good science is to invoke a self-fulfilling prophecy of the 
failure of this act.
  Extinction cannot be altered. We cannot have second thoughts. It is 
permanent. That permanence should weigh heavily when we consider our 
priorities.
  We must make no mistake about it, our priorities are reflected in 
this budget, and I say respectfully that our priorities in regard to 
this act are skewed. I acknowledge that there are some real problems 
with the Endangered Species Act in its current state. We need to 
reauthorize the act, we need to change it, we need to make sure there 
is the ability for consultation with State and local government and 
with the private sector. We have to make sure there are exemptions for 
small property owners. We have to make sure that there are incentives 
for people complying with the Endangered Species Act. Those things are 
not in the act at this time. We have to put them in the act.
  But to simply defund it, or fund it inadequately and to place a 
moratorium on listings, is not the way to do business. 

[[Page S18601]]

  I acknowledge, I repeat, the problems with the Endangered Species 
Act. I talked about some of them. These problems we have talked about 
at long length before the authorizing committee, and they are going to 
be addressed in the substantive legislation when it comes to this body 
and it is debated here on the floor.
  That is why, Mr. President, a moratorium on listing species is wrong. 
The moratorium removes flexibility of the Secretary of the Interior. It 
delays action when action is critical. This moratorium in this 
conference report does, in fact, jeopardize the existence of species.
  In this conference report, I think that we find a lot of impatience 
for substantive, reasonable, and prudent reform. We should be patient. 
We should recognize that this bill needs to be reauthorized. The 
moratorium would, regretfully, in my estimation, remain in effect 
despite the lack of logic, despite the damaging effects, and despite 
the fact the committees of jurisdiction have and will continue to 
address issues of concern.
  The proponents of the Endangered Species Act reform argued for better 
science throughout the process of specie preservation. I ask, how is 
better science provided for if the funding is not provided for? Many 
who argue for reform of the Endangered Species Act assert the need to 
do more than just list a species, but also to declassify and delist 
species. Let us make sure the agency has the ability to do that, and 
they only have the ability to do that if there is sufficient funding.
  But then what is the effect of failing to fund the act at an 
effective level? Mr. President, one of the effects of insufficient 
funding would be a decline of the medicinal research and humanitarian 
purposes that have benefited from the preservation and study of species 
and plants. Indeed, there is a great hope, hope of thousands of people 
who are fighting diseases that are anchored in the search for cures 
within the ecosystems and plant life that today may be on the verge of 
extinction.
  More than 40 percent of prescriptions filled in our country, in the 
United States, each year derive from plants, animals, and microbes. 
These include medicines to fight cancers, infections, contagious 
disease, heart disease, childhood leukemia, to name just a few.
  There is a lot of fun made of the Endangered Species Act. Why do we 
worry about this animal or that plant? The reason we worry about them 
is, I repeat, 40 percent of the prescriptions filled in our country are 
derived from plants, animals, and microbes.
  Take, for example, the rosy periwinkle. It sounds funny, does it not, 
rosy periwinkle? In this little plant, two compounds were found that 
have proved successful in treating Hodgkin's disease and childhood 
leukemia.
  As far as childhood leukemia, it cures childhood leukemia except in 
rare cases. When the Presiding Officer and I were children, teenagers, 
young adults, children who got leukemia died. It is not that way 
anymore. Parents who have little children who have childhood leukemia 
are cured. Why? Because of something called the rosy periwinkle.
  There is also a pupfish, an imperiled desert vertebrate, residing in 
isolated hot springs in the Southwest part of this country. The pupfish 
can survive in very high salt concentrations, and this ability is being 
studied as we speak by researchers in hopes of developing new 
treatments for kidney disease.
  This pupfish is extinct in many places. There are a variety of 
pupfish. In the State of Nevada, we have an agricultural area that grew 
cotton. Because of the pupfish, the water that supplied the cotton was 
curtailed, and that area is no longer a cotton farming area. That is 
the sacrifice that was made for this little fish that will, all 
scientists say, lead to some dramatic changes in the way we treat renal 
failure.

  We do not know every plant and animal that exists and, consequently, 
we do not know every cure, remedy, and healing that may exist for our 
benefit.
  I am not going to take the time of this body. There are Senators 
wishing to speak on this floor. I could list plant after plant that 
leads to helping relieve the pain and misery of disease and, in many 
instances, cures disease. Of the 220,000 worldwide types of plants, 
only 5,000 have been examined for medicinal compounds. We know, as a 
result of an article within the past year in the Wall Street Journal 
that talked about some of these plants that were deemed to be 
worthless, how they have brought about dramatic improvements in the way 
we treat disease.
  The black bear, which is a threatened bear in many parts of the 
United States, are now being studied because scientists believe they 
have found definitive and definite clues to the prevention of 
osteoporosis. How? The bear loses no bone mass during its 5- to 6-month 
hibernation period, and scientists are wondering why. They are now 
beginning to find out why.
  What cures are we willing to risk losing with lack of funding of the 
Endangered Species Act? I do not think we should be willing to risk the 
loss of any cures. Recently, the American Society of Microbiology 
called for increased research in potential medicinal plants and other 
species, which takes on an urgency as known diseases grow resistant to 
known antibiotics.
  How can we justify underfunding such a vital work of preserving 
species? I know there are problems with the Endangered Species Act. I 
say that on this floor for the second time today. I know that we have 
to reauthorize it and make some changes in the way the act has been 
administered. But I tell each of my colleagues, we must trust the 
legislative process of reauthorization and reform and fully fund the 
Endangered Species Act. It is not happening in this conference report, 
and that is too bad.
  We ensure for ourselves the need for more emergency saving efforts. 
This is a small price to pay when it comes to protecting and preserving 
species faced with imminent extinction.
  I repeat, I recognize the difficulty of this legislation arriving at 
the point where it is. I again extend my congratulations and applause 
to the managers of this legislation, the senior Senator from the State 
of Washington and the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia. 
But I really feel that this conference report is lacking in a number of 
different ways, not the least of which is the problem with the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

                          ____________________