[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28441-28442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

       CONFERENCE REPORT FOR INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2000

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate passed the conference 
agreement for the Interior appropriations bill on October 21, 1999. 
Although this conference report was approved by unanimous consent, I 
wanted to express my objections to the amount of excessive pork-barrel 
spending and extraneous legislative riders included in this final 
agreement.
  In late September, the Senate passed an Interior bill that included 
$217 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending. This new conference 
agreement has taken pork-barrel spending to higher proportions by 
adding an additional $140 million in earmarks that either were not 
included in the Senate or House bill, or increased funding levels for 
certain projects at levels far above the requested amounts.
  I am constantly amazed by tactics used by my colleagues to attach 
earmarks for parochial projects that have not been authorized or that 
circumvent a fair and merit-review process. The conferees have even 
included report language that directs federal agencies to fund targeted 
earmarks included in

[[Page 28442]]

the conference report prior to distributing general allocated funds to 
the rest of the country.
  In my review of the final conference report, I have identified 
numerous earmarks and riders that are included in a list of 
objectionable provisions that is available on my Senate webpage. I 
remind my colleagues that I do not object to these projects based on 
their merit nor do I intend to belittle the importance of specific 
projects to local communities. My objections are based on issues of 
fairness and following established procedures to consider budgetary 
items as well as a undergoing a separate legislative process for policy 
and statutory changes to our federal laws. Unfortunately, the conferees 
have been able to side-step our established budget and legislative 
rules by utilizing deceptive wording and budget gimmickry.
  For example, this conference report includes an extra $22 million in 
designated ``emergency'' funding for certain areas in the State of 
Alaska. This funding was not considered in either the Senate or House 
bills, but added during last-minute negotiations. Again, I certainly 
understand economic hardships facing rural Alaskans, but why is funding 
economic projects such as building a regional shipyard, a larger 
fishing dock, as well as converting a pulp mill to a Coca Cola bottling 
plant, of higher priority than addressing important land and resources 
management issues that are intended to be paid for through the Interior 
appropriations bill? This added ``emergency'' spending, despite that 
fact that it will purportedly not count against budget cap 
restrictions, will still be paid for by the taxpayers.
  Also added in this conference report is an entirely new title that 
includes legislation, the ``Mississippi National Forest Improvement Act 
of 1999,'' which had not previously considered in the previous Senate 
or House bills. Furthermore, emergency funding of $68 million is 
provided for the ``United Mine Workers of America'' benefit fund, also 
not previously included in either the Senate or House versions of the 
Interior appropriations bills.
  The conferees have targeted funding for projects that provide little 
detail as to their overall national priority or merit. For example, 
$300,000 that was originally dedicated for a Forest Service regional 
office is instead directed to be earmarked for heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning systems at the Forest Products Labs in Wisconsin. 
Language is included to provide for specific acquisition of a high band 
radio system for the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. 
While these maintenance improvements may very well be necessary, is 
this the type of projects that deserve funding above other important 
land, forest and wildlife priorities?
  Much of this wasteful spending could be directed toward other 
priorities and programs that allow states and local communities to 
prioritize their own needs at the local level, such as the State-side 
program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I, along with several 
of my colleagues, have supported prioritizing the State-side program of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a program that provides federal 
resources for projects that are considered fairly and competitively. 
The conferees agreed to provide $20 million to the State-side program 
for the first time in many years, but this level is less than the $30 
million approved by the Senate and far below what is necessary to 
address locally identified needs. Unfortunately, the State-side 
program, and many other programs that fund projects based on merit and 
national priority, are penalized due to other low-priority and special 
interest spending as part of this conference report.
  Mr. President, each year the conferees utilize the appropriations 
process to tack on legislative riders that either were not considered 
through a legislative process or added with the intension to delay 
important policy and regulatory changes. Many environmental and land 
management laws cannot be updated or reviewed when legislative riders 
are included that prohibit any action by federal agencies to proceed 
with a fair and comprehensive review of impacts on our natural 
resources. A few of the these riders include:
  A delay in promulgating rules to update oil valuation royalty 
assessments for oil drilled on federal lands;
  A two-year exemption for certain mining companies who utilize public 
lands for purposes of storing mine waste;
  A year-long delay for surface management regulations governing 
hardrock mining; and,
  A continuing moratorium on Indian tribal P.L. 93-638 Indian Self-
Determination Contracts that allow direct management and funding for 
tribally operated programs.
  I support an open and fair review of our laws that govern public 
lands and resources, but we cannot fully evaluate the fairness and 
appropriateness of proposed changes when legislative riders such as 
these put a halt to our congressional review.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that important land, forest and 
Native American programs will continue to be supported through this 
annual funding bill. Unfortunately, many communities across this 
country will not receive the critical resources they need because of 
the continuing and unfair practice of pork-barrel spending. This year, 
our American taxpayers will pay the tab for $357 million in parochial 
and low-priority spending.

                          ____________________