[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11828-S11834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

[[Page S11829]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the continuing 
resolution and, specifically, the immigration bill, which deals with 
illegal immigration and which has been added as a portion of that bill.
  Few issues are more clearly and unequivocally the responsibility of 
the Federal Government than the issue of immigration, whether it be 
lawful or unlawful. Legal immigration, the threads from which our 
Nation's rich tapestry is woven, is a matter of national policy, and, 
in fact, no nation on Earth has as a liberal policy and takes in more 
people from other countries each year than does the United States of 
America.

  The ability to absorb newcomers becomes a question of resources, a 
reflection of our values, values of self-sufficiency, responsibility, 
respect for our laws, family unity, and the legacy of this country as a 
Nation of immigrants.
  Illegal immigration, however, is a matter of law enforcement --
whether it is enforcing our borders, enforcing our laws against working 
illegally or hiring someone to work illegally. It is the Federal 
Government's responsibility to enforce these laws.
  Unfortunately, this job has not been done well over the years, and 
the prohibitions against illegal immigration, while on the books, have 
meant very little in reality. The cost of the failure to act on this 
responsibility has been very high.
  Warning signals have been coming for years:
  Communities are demanding action against: the growing crowds of 
illegal workers looking for day labor on street corners; lawsuits 
demanding Federal reimbursement for the cost of incarcerating, 
educating or providing health care for illegal aliens. ``English only'' 
laws are being discussed, expressing concerns about the inability of 
teachers to teach in schools. Many in California have dozens of 
different languages. As a matter of fact, there has been a report that 
67 different languages are spoken in a single elementary school. It is 
very difficult for teachers to teach under these circumstances. There 
is also a rise in discrimination, and even vigilantes at airports 
looking for illegal immigrants.
  A study just released by the Public Policy Institute of California 
sheds some light on the rise in animosity toward illegal immigrants. 
The study shows that the level of illegal immigration into California 
during the 1980's was substantially higher than previously thought.
  Researchers estimate that as many as 2.2 million illegal immigrants 
settled in California during the 1980's, their migration soaring along 
with the California economy, comprising as much as 22 to 31 percent of 
all newcomers to the State during that period.
  This is the point. As the State's economy stalled in the 1990's, the 
research indicates, interestingly enough, that illegal immigration 
dropped to about 100,000 a year. So as the economy of a given area gets 
stronger, the job magnet attraction for illegal immigration increases. 
When an economy worsens, that job magnet attraction clearly decreases.
  I came to this body in 1993 after having run for Governor of my State 
3 years before. I knew then as I traveled through my State--and I 
learned it very clearly--in 1989 and in 1990 that this was going to be 
a growing issue, and that the need for change was becoming more urgent.
  As a newcomer to this body, I stood in the Chamber on June 30, 1993, 
and told my colleagues that I believed we needed to take action to stem 
illegal immigration, that the impact on my State had become enormous, 
and that failure to do so would only bring about a backlash.
  At that time, I introduced a bill to beef up our borders and stiffen 
penalties for document fraud and for employing illegal workers. I tried 
to get myself on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee, where I have served with the distinguished Presiding Officer 
these past 2 years. But this body did not act. The House did not act.
  Within a year, in California, organizers were circulating petitions 
to put proposition 187 on the ballot--by far, the most draconian and 
punitive anti-immigration measure seen in this country for many 
decades, and for the first time it targeted children. It took the 
approach of requiring that teachers and doctors report anyone suspected 
of being here illegally.
  Essentially, if a youngster were in school and looked different or 
talked different and the teacher suspected they might be illegal, it 
was that teacher's law-given obligation to report that youngster to the 
INS. If that youngster was born in this country and therefore a citizen 
but the parents might have been born in another country and came here 
illegally, it was that teacher's obligation to report that youngster.
  Most amazingly so, the same prerequisites and obligations were 
imposed on doctors and health care workers. Therefore making it a real 
risk, if a child had measles or chicken pox, to even take that child to 
a doctor. Believe it or not, that proposition passed with a substantial 
majority in the State, and it won in most minority communities. As a 
matter of fact, even in those communities where it did not win, it 
received a substantial plurality.
  A poll taken by the Los Angeles Times, right after the election, 
asked voters why they supported proposition 187. Nearly 80 percent of 
the initiative's supporters said it was to send a message to 
Washington. More than half said they hoped this would force Washington 
to do something about illegal immigration. Less than 2 percent--believe 
it or not--cared for the specific measure that denied education to 
illegal children in that now infamous initiative.
  I did not support that measure, but the message was unmistakably 
clear. People should not have to force the Federal Government to live 
up to its responsibilities to enforce our borders and our laws. Period. 
We do not have the luxury of debating this issue for another 2 years or 
4 years. Rather, we have the responsibility to take action now. And the 
bill in this continuing resolution does offer strong reform. This is 
not a perfect bill, but its major thrust is to stop illegal 
immigration. And carried out and enforced, I believe it can make a 
major step forward in that direction.
  Let me just quickly talk for a few moments about some of the key 
provisions. Mr. President, both you and I strongly supported the 
provision to add 1,000 new border patrol agents each year for the next 
5 years and allow the Attorney General to increase support personnel at 
the border by 300 per year, over the same period. This effectively 
doubles the strength of the Border Patrol.
  I think this works. Since 1993, Border Patrol, along our southwest 
border, has increased by 50 percent in personnel. And, as a result, 
apprehensions of illegal immigrants rose more than 60 percent in 1 
month at the beginning of this year. Clearly, the presence of added 
Border Patrol makes a difference in controlling illegal immigration.
  This bill improves border infrastructure, authorizing $12 million for 
new equipment and technologies for border control, including building a 
triple fence in appropriate areas, and new roads. This would be in one 
of the most highly traveled and difficult to patrol areas along the 
southwest border.
  The bill adds 600 new INS investigators in 1997 alone to enforce our 
laws. I have heard critics criticize this bill, saying it does not do 
enough in that direction. However, there will be 150 more investigators 
to investigate employer violations, 150 to investigate criminal aliens, 
and 300 designated to investigate visa overstays in 1997.
  You and I know that one-half of the people who come into our country 
illegally have visas and they just simply overstay that visa. And the 
visa, up to this point, has had no teeth. If they disappear into the 
fabric of the society, it is very difficult to find them to enforce 
that visa. This bill dedicates 300 new INS investigators to visa 
overstays. It is the first real effort this Congress has made to 
control one of the biggest problem areas in illegal immigration.
  And the bill allows the Attorney General to establish an automated 
entry and exit control system, to match arriving and departing aliens 
and identify those who overstay their visas.
  It precludes a person who overstays his or her visa from returning to 
this country for up to 10 years. This gives meaning to a visa. In a 
sense, in a

[[Page S11830]]

great sense, I am sorry we have reached this day and age in our very 
free society. But, you know, there is one thing I deeply believe and 
that is, we are a country of laws. We do not have the liberty to pick 
and choose which laws we enforce or do not enforce. But the departments 
of our Government should be bound to enforce the laws that are on the 
books.
  We, if we do not like those laws, have the ability and the 
opportunity to change those laws. I am very disappointed this bill does 
not increase penalties for employers who violate the law as the Senate 
bill did, but penalties do exist. I have just taken a look at those 
penalties. As I mentioned earlier, there are also 150 INS agents, 
investigators specifically designated to investigate employers. The 
penalties essentially go from $250 to $10,000 in civil penalties for 
each alien, increasing with the number of offenses. And, on top of 
these fines, if the employer has a pattern of violations, he or she can 
also be subject to a maximum of $3,000 per alien and 6 months in prison 
for each transaction. And the Attorney General may also issue an 
injunction against the employer for repeated offenses.
  If you think about it, these are strong penalties. But what is the 
problem? The problem is they have not been enforced. So this bill, once 
again, must be enforced if it is to have teeth.
  Let me speak of worker verification. This is another disappointment 
because the heart of any effective system to prevent the job magnet 
from working is verification of documents that show legal authority to 
work. Any employer who can have their prospective employee, while being 
interviewed, present up to 29 documents, really cannot tell which is 
real and which is false. I know that. I have been in that position. I 
know how difficult it is to tell. This bill establishes three pilot 
programs for employment verification in five of the highest-impact 
States. So this is a step forward.
  I want to speak for just a moment about document fraud, because 
probably there is no more greater problem in the United States in this 
area than document fraud. It is wholesale. It is rife.
  It is just all over the place. Just recently, INS shut down a major 
document fraud ring in Santa Ana, CA. They confiscated 22,000 fake 
green cards, Social Security cards and driver's licenses. These were 
all first-rate forgeries, and they were meant to be sold in California 
and throughout three other States. It is a major underground industry 
in my State, and this bill does begin to deal with this problem.
  It reduces the number of documents that can be used to establish an 
individual's employment eligibility, and it increases the maximum 
penalties for document fraud from 5 to 15 years in prison. That is the 
maximum, and it sets security standards for key identification 
documents, such as birth certificates and driver's licenses, to prevent 
fraud and counterfeiting.
  If I had my way, we would cut the number of documents down to a basic 
number and make every green card, every Social Security card and every 
birth certificate counterfeit-resistant.
  So the compromise in this bill is not all I wanted or think we need, 
but, again, it will be light years better than the situation we now 
have with employers having to struggle to recognize up to 29 different 
documents.
  The bill also stiffens penalties for aliens illegally entering or 
attempting to enter the United States, and makes high-speed flight from 
an INS checkpoint a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. I 
think most Members of this Senate have seen the results of high-speed 
chases, certainly in my State, where people can die by the dozens in 
car crashes, in overcrowded vans, as innocent victims of high-speed-
pursuit chases by law enforcement. And, of course, one very notorious 
incident resulted in law enforcement officers in a county taking out 
their frustrations physically upon some of the people who were being 
carried in the van.
  Let me just for a moment speak about title V. This was a 
controversial title. It included some provisions for illegal immigrants 
and several provisions for legal immigrants. It was meant to tighten up 
income requirements and do some other things. Basically, I very much 
agree with the changes made to title V--with some exceptions, and I am 
prepared to support it. There is one area which was not changed and 
with which I have a major problem, and that is the section that deals 
with refugee assistance. A provision was deleted from the conference 
report that would have corrected a glaring inequity in the allocation 
of refugee assistance funds.
  Under the funding formulas in the current law, funds for refugee 
assistance are not allocated on the basis of need or numbers or where 
the refugees are. My State, California, has 60 percent of all of the 
refugees in the United States of America. We receive $31 per refugee 
under this bill, while other States receive as much as $497 per 
refugee. That is just plain wrong. It is not the way this Government 
should exist, with cushy deals for some States and other States really 
ending up down and out.
  This provision costs California $7 million in Federal funds. The 
withdrawal of the language that I submitted, to see to it that refugee 
dollars went based on where the refugees are, is not included in the 
immigration bill. It went with some kind of a political plum. I 
certainly intend to readdress this issue at the first available 
opportunity in the next Congress.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I must say, I am very pleased that the 
Gallegly amendment is out of this bill. I also think that fair changes 
have been made to the immigration bill, and I particularly thank the 
members of the Immigration Subcommittee. I think both you and I would 
agree that the markup of this bill on the Senate side was something 
very unusual. Members listened to each other, and it went on hour after 
hour, day after day. I think we produced a very good bill on the Senate 
side.
  This bill has been changed somewhat. I think it still remains a very 
strong Federal tool giving the Departments of the Federal Government 
both the license they need, as well as the tools they need, to see that 
we do what we should do: guarantee that the borders of our country are 
enforced against illegal immigration.

  I, for one, being the product of legal immigrants, really believe 
that it is important that the richness of our tapestry continue to be 
woven through people who come to this country from many other places. 
The fact that the legal immigration quotas remain as they are, 
extraordinarily broad, and I think liberal, is important, and that we 
say to the people of this Nation, ``We are a nation of laws, and we 
will abide by them.''
  I thank the committee. I particularly thank the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, who worked very hard and 
very diligently, who has studied this issue and which legislation bears 
his name. I think he has been a person of great integrity and 
credibility on the issue for a long, long time. When he retires from 
this body, I guess at the end of this year, he will leave a legacy of 
fairness and a striving for laws in this area which are sustained by 
that credibility and integrity.
  Finally, I want to address sponsor income requirements. In addition 
to being enforceable, sponsor contracts must also be realistic. I 
support raising the income requirement for sponsors of immigrants.
  The purpose of the sponsor income requirement is to ensure that 
people who sponsor immigrants into this country have the ability to 
provide for them. Tell me how someone supports a family of two on 
$10,360 per year--which is the current poverty-level requirement.
  A person can barely support himself or herself on $10,360 per year--
that's why it's called the poverty level.
  This bill makes what I think is a modest change in the income 
requirement: If you have an income of $12,950 per year for a family of 
two, you can bring your spouse and minor children into this country.
  California--and all States who bear the burden of illegal 
immigration--need this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation by voting yes.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill that is 
now

[[Page S11831]]

before the U.S. Senate includes 6 of the regular appropriations bills 
out of 13, but includes, by far, the largest amount of money directly 
appropriated by the Congress for discretionary purposes during the 
course of the year, as 2 of those 6 bills are the appropriations bills 
for our national defense and for all myriad activities coming under the 
rubric of labor, health, and human services.
  These appropriations, nevertheless, represent only a modest 
proportion of the money the people of the United States spend through 
their taxes and through their borrowing because, of course, it does not 
involve major changes in any of the entitlement programs which continue 
to grow almost without any significant control.
  Nevertheless, this is a responsible appropriations bill. It is the 
work of a bipartisan compromise, actually a tripartite compromise, 
involving the Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress, with 
input from the Democratic minority, all subject to the will of the 
President of the United States who has said he will sign the bill.
  By and large, it is a commonsense solution, it is a reasonable 
appropriations bill, and it is one that I will certainly vote to pass.
  This set of appropriations does dramatically reduce the spending for 
discretionary purposes by the Government of the United States. It does 
at least begin to move in the direction of reducing the burdens that we 
impose on the people of the United States and reducing at least the 
growth in the debt that we load on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren. It changes the direction that 40 years of a Congress 
dominated by the Democratic Party led this country in. To that extent, 
it represents a very important change.
  Even so, Mr. President, last-minute negotiations have included in 
this proposal, in my opinion, $3 billion or $4 billion of the $6.5 
billion demanded by the President over and above the earlier plans of 
the budget that is unnecessary spending. It is, in essence, the price 
that we pay for ending this debate on the last day of the fiscal year 
and not threatening a closedown of the Government. That is a relatively 
high price, $3 billion or $4 billion, but it pales to relative 
insignificance when compared with the more than $50 billion that we 
have saved from the normal growth of previous programs over the course 
of the last several decades.
  We are heading in the right direction, in other words, but we have 
not achieved our ultimate goals.
  We on this side of the aisle have as a priority to make the Federal 
Government live within its own means, to cut wasteful Government 
spending, to end, to terminate the time at which we continually add to 
the burdens of those who will come after us. We have made it a priority 
to return power to the people and to their local and State governments.
  But in spite of these gains, Mr. President, do most people really 
think that we have clipped the wings of the bureaucrats here in 
Washington, DC, and returned power to them? I think not, Mr. President. 
And I believe that that perception, that reality, shows not only what 
we have gained in the last 2 years, but how far we still have to go.
  It is time and it is our purpose to return common sense to 
Government, to give individuals a greater degree of influence over 
their own daily lives, to change the direction of the last decades, to 
examine programs which have gone unexamined for a decade, two decades, 
three decades, four. When programs are not working, Mr. President, they 
should be changed or terminated.
  But overall, as I said, as I began these remarks, this is a good 
appropriations bill. It does move us in the right direction. It is one 
that it is appropriate for us to pass. And I am convinced that before 
the evening is out, we will have passed it.
  At this point in my remarks, Mr. President, I have the details of 
that portion of this bill that comes under the influence of the 
Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies. In that connection, Mr. President, the bill is almost 
identical to the bill that we were considering here on the floor of the 
Senate at the time at which nongermane amendments, by the legion, were 
offered, and the bill was taken down.
  That proposal was worked out in a totally bipartisan fashion, with 
the help and the assistance and the approval of my most distinguished 
colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. It is a 
very responsible answer to questions in connection to our national 
parks, our national forests, our energy resources, our cultural 
institutions and the like.
  As you will recall, the Interior bill was brought up and debated 
briefly on September 6, 9, and 10, before being put aside. With little 
possibility of passing a separate bill in time for the start of the 
fiscal year, the Interior bill has been combined into the omnibus 
appropriations bill. Following the Senate floor action, Senator Byrd 
and his staff and my staff and I worked with our House counterparts to 
iron out the differences between the House-passed and Senate-reported 
bills. The bill before you reflects the product of those discussions as 
well as negotiations with the White House to ensure that a final 
product would be signed by the President.
  This bill represents compromises. No one received everything he or 
she wanted. However, I believe it is in the interest of the Nation to 
move forward so vital operations of the Government can continue 
uninterrupted as the new fiscal year begins. It includes 
$12,504,798,000 in discretionary budget authority and approximately 
$13,176,000,000 in outlays. The President's budget request is $377 
million above the level included in the omnibus bill in budget 
authority and $494 million above it in outlays. As a starting point, 
the discrepancy in House and Senate 602(b) allocations was resolved by 
splitting the difference between the two allocations.
  The Interior bill includes an additional $150 million for programs 
that the Congress and the administration agree are priorities, and for 
which additional funding should be provided. These programs include 
areas such as Indian education, energy conservation, Indian health 
services and facilities, the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
Amendments were expected to be considered on the Senate floor that 
would have added funding to these same programs. The administration has 
expressed concern regarding specific legislative provisions within the 
bill and many of these provisions have been dropped or modified.
  Emergency funding is included to address the devastating wildfires in 
the West and hurricane, flood-related and other disaster damages in the 
East and West. Only $88.2 million for Forest Service fire suppression 
is proposed in the President's fiscal year 1997 request. The agency's 
10-year annual average expenditure for fire suppression is $296.4 
million, leaving a $208.2 million shortfall if fiscal year 1997 proves 
to have an average fire season. In addition, the Forest Service 
currently owes the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust Fund (K-V) $571 million for 
current-year and past-year fire suppression activities. The agency 
cannot borrow additional funds from the KV fund without deferring 
statutorily required reforestation activities. Recognizing the severity 
of this fire season, the unrealistic budget request, and the critical 
juncture of the fire and KV programs, an additional $120.5 million 
above the budget request is added for fire suppression activities, 
bringing the total to $210.5 million. Also, included in the Interior 
portion of the omnibus bill is $550 million to repay the borrowed KV 
funds. Another $100 million is included for the Department of the 
Interior's fire suppression activities. Funding of $48 million for 
damage caused by floods, hurricanes, and other natural acts is 
included. Within the Interior section, $17 million is provided for 
counterterrorism.
  The Interior bill presents difficult choices. The needs of the 
various agencies funded through the Interior bill are great, from the 
operations and facilities requirements of the national parks, forests, 
refuges, public lands, and museums to the basic health care, tribal 
government, and education services provided to native Americans. In 
assembling this bill, we have attempted to strike a balance between 
these competing interests and between the various interests of the 
Congress and the administration.
  Now, let us turn to the recommendations before you today. Among the 
items of interest are:

[[Page S11832]]

                            Land Management

  The omnibus bill provides additional funds above the fiscal year 1996 
amounts for the operational accounts of the land management agencies.
Bureau of Land Management: plus 1 percent.
Fish and Wildlife Service: plus 5 percent.
National Park Service: plus 6 percent.
Forest Service: plus 1 percent.

  The construction accounts for the land management agencies have 
increased $38.5 million, or about 11 percent, above the fiscal year 
1996 level. The majority of the construction projects involve the 
completion of ongoing projects and the restoration or rehabilitation of 
existing facilities. While it may seem that this is a large increase 
for construction, I would remind my colleagues that the facility 
backlogs for these land management agencies are approximately $9 
billion.
  Overall funding for land acquisition for the land management agencies 
totals $149.4 million, which is about $11.2 million, or 8 percent, over 
the current level; $49.4 million above the House level; and $3.6 
million below the Senate committee recommendation. The omnibus bill has 
identified specific projects, even though the House bill did not.


                            Science Agencies

  Funding for the Office of Surface Mining is increased slightly, while 
the Minerals Management Service is maintained at the fiscal year 1996 
level through the increased use of user fees.


                          Cultural Activities

  Within this category, the first priority was to provide adequate 
resources to those cultural institutions, such as our Nation's museums, 
for which the Federal Government has primary funding responsibility.
  Among the many competing needs of our cultural agencies, the 
subcommittee continues to place particular emphasis on repair and 
renovation work that is required to keep these institutions open to the 
public and collections preserved safely. Budget estimates from the 
Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian 
Institution have been met in full to facilitate this work.


                          Department of Energy

  Energy conservation programs are funded at $570 million. This number 
is an increase from the initial House-Senate conference agreement, 
reflecting the committees' response to the funding priorities 
identified by the administration late last week.
  Within the amount provided for energy conservation, the 
weatherization program is increased by $9 million over the fiscal year 
1996 level and the State energy conservation program is increased by $3 
million.
  Fossil research and development is down 4.5 percent from the 
comparable fiscal year 1996 level.
  The sum of $123 million is rescinded from the Clean Coal Technology 
Program, substantially less than the $325 million rescission proposed 
in the budget. The rescission included in the conference agreement 
reflects a careful consideration of the needs of projects remaining in 
the program, funds made available by the recent termination of some 
projects, and the $200 million rescission that was enacted last year.
  Funding for the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves is set at 
$143.8 million. While this amount is above both the House and Senate 
passed levels, it is still $5 million below the prior year level and 
does little to address the increased demands placed on the program by 
the potential sale of the Elk Hills field. I also note that the 
administration estimated that the original House and Senate funding 
levels would have resulted in a revenue loss of $45 million over the 
next 2 years.

  Operations of the strategic petroleum reserve are funded by oil sales 
from the reserves, $220 million.


                            Indian Programs

  In aggregate, Indian programs total $3,765,645,000 in the Interior 
portion of the bill, which is an increase of about $112 million above 
the fiscal year 1996 funding level and about $16.5 million above the 
Senate committee recommendation.
  BIA.--Funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs increases by about $34 
million above the fiscal year 1996 funding level, and $68 million above 
the House amount.
  Tribal priority allocations.--Emphasis has been placed on providing 
additional funding to tribal priority allocations, which is $26.7 
million--plus 4 percent--above fiscal year 1996 and $4.2 million above 
the Senate committee recommended level. Within the tribal priority 
allocations, the committee has included an increase of $4 million for 
small and needy tribes and a general increase of $19.5 million.
  School Operations.--The omnibus bill also places emphasis on 
elementary and secondary school operations and funding has been 
increased by $41.3 million--plus 10 percent--above the fiscal year 1996 
level and almost $23 million above the Senate Committee recommended 
level. The omnibus bill funds all BIA-funded elementary and secondary 
school operations at the budget request, with the exception of a small 
reduction--$2 million--below the President's request for the Indian 
School Equalization Program [ISEP] formula.
  Indian Health Service.--Total funding for the IHS is increased by $67 
million--3.4 percent. The increase is for staffing of recently 
completed facilities, a portion of pay costs to maintain service 
levels, and funding for replacement of a health care facility in 
Montana that recently burned to the ground.


                         Legislative Provisions

  Several provisions have been removed that were included in either the 
House or Senate versions of the Interior bill, but which were opposed 
by the administration. The following provisions have been removed: 
General Accounting Office review of the Tongass land management plan; 
Pennsylvania Avenue (section 115); funding distribution formula for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (section 118); Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 
(section 121); Mount Graham Red Squirrel (section 317); Istook 
amendment--tax collections (section 322).
  Another provision (section 329) dealing with sovereign immunity had 
been removed previously during Senate committee consideration of the 
Interior bill. During negotiations last week on the omnibus bill, a 
proposed provision was dropped that would have imposed a moratorium on 
any rulemaking by the Secretary of the Interior for class III tribal-
State Indian gaming compacts.
  As I mentioned, one of the provisions removed from the Interior bill 
was the Mount Graham provision concerning the construction of a large 
binocular telescope on Mount Graham, AZ. The provision amended Public 
Law 100-696, the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 [AICA] to 
permit the use of the alternative site 2 on Emerald Peak of Mount 
Graham. This provision was contained in the fiscal year 1996 omnibus 
appropriations bill (Public Law 104-134) as well and brought the site 
fully within AICA's exemptions from otherwise applicable laws.
  On June 17, 1996, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 
Mount Graham Coalition v. Thomas, 89 F. 3d 554 (9th Cir. 1996) 
validated the congressional action in the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. The provision effected a permanent change in AICA 
to ensure the prompt construction and operation of the telescope. Since 
AICA has been amended and has been validated by the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, it is no longer necessary to include the provision in the 
fiscal year 1997 appropriations act.
  A gaming amendment is included that would amend the Rhode Island 
settlement law to clarify that for the purposes of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Rhode Island settlement lands should not be 
treated as Indian lands. At the time that IGRA was passed, a colloquy 
was entered into that clearly stated the intent for the protections of 
the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act should remain in effect 
and that the Narragansett Indian Tribe should remain subject to the 
civil, criminal, and regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island. 
These laws include the State prohibition against casino gambling. Other 
settlement laws exempt specific tribes or settlement lands from IGRA.


       Grand Staircase-Canyons of the Escalante National Monument

  Mr. President, I am very concerned that the administration recently 
created the Grand Staircase-Canyons of the Escalante as one of the 
largest national monuments in the continental United States without the 
consultation of Congress and without public comment. I expect the 
Secretary to fully

[[Page S11833]]

comply with the provisions outlined in the proclamation dated September 
18, 1996. Pursuant to the proclamation, it is my understanding that the 
Secretary will manage through the Bureau of Land Management.
  As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I would 
remind the administration that the designation of a national monument 
implicitly implies significant future funding obligations. In a period 
when funding requirements and maintenance backlogs are at an all-time 
high at the Department of the Interior, the need for a public policy 
debate over creating new national monuments, particularly as large as 
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, is extremely 
important. Ultimately, public input into the process serves the public 
good and assists the committee in its challenging funding priorities. I 
urge the administration to use the public process outlined in numerous 
environmental statutes dating back to the 1970's in order to designate 
such a large tract of land as this.
  Due to the serious impacts of the national monument designation to 
the people of Utah and on budget allocations, it is my view that no 
other national monument should be designated in Utah until the 
management plan and final issues regarding the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument are resolved.
  I am concerned about the lack of details on the monument beyond the 
information contained in the proclamation, including estimated costs to 
manage the monument and provide for a potential increase in visitors to 
the area. As a result, I am requesting the Secretary of the Interior to 
submit a report by February 1, 1997 that details the costs associated 
with the monument, the process for developing a management plan, and a 
detailed description of how affected parties will be involved in the 
process of developing the management plan. Also, I am requesting that 
the Secretary submit by April 1, 1997, a plan for implementing an 
exchange of the school trust lands located within the monument.
  Mr. President, I said in these earlier remarks that as important and 
as widespread as this appropriations bill is, it neither represents all 
of the triumphs and change of direction in this Congress or all of the 
areas that remain undone.
  We have accomplished a great deal in this Congress. We have saved 
some 50-plus billions of dollars in appropriated accounts, money that 
will not go on the credit card to be charged to later generations.
  For our citizens, for our constituents, who were angry and upset with 
the current welfare system because it discouraged work and encouraged 
dependency, we have acted, if you are able-bodied, you will not be able 
to receive endless Government checks in the future.
  Under the plan passed by Republican Members, with Democratic 
assistance in both bodies and signed by the President, if you can work, 
you will work or at least you will be off of the public welfare rolls. 
The gravy train is over. Reform that was only discussed in the abstract 
in past Congresses is a part of the law now.
  For those of our citizens who wanted health care reform, without the 
massive bureaucracy that was proposed here just over 2 years ago, we 
have also acted. You will be able to change your jobs and take your 
health care with you. You will not be prohibited from getting health 
care insurance by reason of preexisting conditions. The changes that 
the people of this country actually wanted 2 years ago, but were 
overwhelmed by the complexity of the President's proposed system, the 
changes that they actually wanted are there. The overwhelming Federal 
control is not.
  A line-item veto, talked about for years, but a reality in this 
Republican Congress.
  A constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced budget, passed by 
the House of Representatives, and failed by only a single vote here in 
the U.S. Senate, and I think extremely likely to pass in the course of 
the next Congress.
  Imposing on Congress the rules we have imposed on others, talked 
about in the past and become an accomplishment of this Congress.
  A real crime bill, not the phony promise of 100,000 new police 
officers, a promise that was never kept, not midnight basketball, but 
an actual law, Megan's law, to protect children from sexual predators 
has passed and has become law.
  Victims rights legislation, new antiterrorism bills, and most 
importantly, laws that will terminate or at least shorten the endless 
appeals in capital punishment cases, all passed.
  Opening up our telecommunications system to new competition, talked 
about for a decade, passed under this Congress.
  New safe drinking water laws for the people of the United States, 
important food safety measures, and the like, all accomplishments of 
this Congress that were only thought of or discussed in theory in 
Congresses in the past.
  Mr. President, matched against these accomplishments, however, are 
those areas in which the job has not yet been completed. Some of these 
are the most important: A desperate attempt last year not just to 
reform our Medicare system, but to preserve and protect it for future 
generations of citizens, to postpone or to cancel the impending 
bankruptcy of the hospital insurance trust fund, the desire to see to 
it that Medicaid becomes more rational and less burdensome on our 
taxpayers and on our States.

  All of these failed, Mr. President, in spite of being a part of the 
massive bill that would have balanced the Federal budget with these 
reforms and with tax relief, all failed because of the veto of the 
President of the United States.
  We can look forward, Mr. President, if we have a Congress like this 
one, to another serious attempt to meet these most vital challenges to 
our future during the course of the next Congress.
  Unfortunately, we have been faced by an administration, at least, and 
many Members of the Democratic Party who prefer the status quo. In 
fact, the great struggle during this Congress was between those who 
were in the majority for so many years who created these problems and 
who liked the status quo and those of us who felt that a major change 
in direction was important for us to reflect the views of the American 
people and regain their trust.
  We must change these entitlement programs. We must see to it that 
they are available to the future without overwhelming the present and 
without overwhelming the generations who in fact through their work 
must pay for them.
  But most of all, Mr. President, we need to provide tax relief for the 
American people. And no difference between the two parties can be 
greater than those who are perfectly content with the present system, 
with the present burdens, and those who feel that tax relief is 
necessary for working American families, and for those of us who beyond 
that feel that even significant amendments to the present Tax Code are 
very similar to putting Band-Aids on a corpse, and that what we really 
need to do, Mr. President, is to junk the present system, to repeal the 
present system, and to begin over again, and to create a system which 
is fair and which is productive, which is simple and understandable, so 
that literally tens of thousands of employees of the Internal Revenue 
Service, and of all the organizations and professions throughout the 
United States who make their livings by finding loopholes in the Tax 
Code, can become accustomed to more productive and more constructive 
work in a growing society.
  Mr. President, we must abolish the IRS as we have known it, but this 
is not so much a criticism of the IRS and the hard-working people who 
are employed by it, as it is of us, those of us who have created a 
system that is so susceptible to misuse, to unfairness, and to 
complexity, and to create a discontent in and among the American 
people.
  So, Mr. President, as we finish this Congress, we have this vitally 
important and positive appropriations bill before the Senate. I believe 
we must also pass a bill relating to our parks and recreation areas 
that is now before the Senate in two different forms from the House of 
Representatives and, of course, the Federal Aviation Administration 
authorization bill so necessary to combat terrorism, to make our 
airways more secure, to provide for the construction of new airport 
facilities and new navigation facilities.
  I hope we can accomplish all of that during the remainder of this 
day, but if

[[Page S11834]]

we cannot, I hope our leadership will keep us throughout the week until 
each of these vitally important initiatives has become the law of the 
land so we can go home and tell the American people we have started to 
change the course in which this country is going. We are shifting it to 
a better and more responsible and more responsive direction, but we 
need more than 2 years to make up for all of the follies of the last 
two to four decades. With that, I recommend the passage of this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the pending legislation as we approach in the course of some 11 hours 
the end of the fiscal year at 12 o'clock midnight. We are faced with an 
appropriations process which I believe has severely undermined what we 
are supposed to be doing as legislators.
  I just heard my distinguished colleague, Senator Gorton, make a 
comment about the price we are paying for what he considers to be extra 
appropriations on certain lines because we have not had an opportunity 
to consider the items in detail. I agree with him about that. My 
suggestion is we are paying even a higher price because we have not 
permitted the appropriations process to run its course because of the 
political differences and the very deterioration of our Senate process.
  It was illustrated on the Interior appropriations bill where the 
majority leader had to take down the bill because of maneuvering--one 
side trying to gain an advantage on some politically popular items like 
education, something I have long supported in my capacity as chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee which deals with appropriations. 
Then the bill which I have the chairmanship of, Labor, Health, Human 
Services, and Education, was never brought to the floor because of 
insufficient time and because of the determination that the bill could 
not be enacted in due course.
  Instead, we have come to a situation where everything is rolled into 
one omnibus appropriations bill, which is a take-it-or-leave-it 
proposition, with the alternative being to close down the Government. 
The procedural posture today is that there is a second measure which 
can come before the Senate which is the Department of Defense 
conference report where the omnibus appropriations bill has been rolled 
in, as well as the immigration bill, which would not even allow an 
opportunity for amendment during consideration of any of the individual 
items if that is to be called up as the order of the day.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, when we reconvene for the 105th 
Congress, we will take a look and change the rules of the Senate to 
prohibit bringing up extraneous, nongermane matters on appropriations 
bills. If that were to be the case, when we consider Interior, it is an 
Interior bill alone. When we consider Labor, Health, Human Services, 
and Education, we then direct our attention to that so we do not get 
into a situation where at the last minute we have no alternative but to 
say yes or no to such a massive bill. Or, when the extraordinary 
procedure is used of having a conference report, either to say yes or 
no without any amendment there.
  I have spoken on this at some great length on Saturday, the day 
before yesterday, Mr. President, and at that time expressed my concern 
about a procedure which blurred the lines of separation of powers 
between the Congress, which is supposed to do the appropriations, then 
sending a bill to the President for his consideration, and a procedure 
in which the Chief of Staff, representing the executive branch, was 
party to negotiations with Congress before the bill was passed. This 
was an aberration, really a corruption, of the constitutional process 
of separation of powers, where each House acts, there is a conference, 
we send a bill to the President, and he makes the decision, signing or 
not, and then the Congress has the power to override.

  What we have really seen, as I said at great length on Saturday, is a 
procedure where we have had the delegation of the President's authority 
to the Chief of Staff, with it being impossible for the President to 
know what was being agreed to on his behalf, again, I think, raising 
serious constitutional questions as to whether the President may 
delegate the authority in that way.

                          ____________________