Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6929-H6966] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1977. {time} 1203 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first of all I want to thank those of my colleagues that supported the rule because I think we have a good bill here given the fact that we are under the constraints of the Budget Act which reduces our amount of money over 10 percent, and also I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle that we had a very bipartisan subcommittee. We worked well together. We tried to be as totally nonpartisan as we had to make these difficult choices, and we did as much as possible to address the challenges of the Interior and related agencies' responsibility with the funds that were available, and I think on balance we did a good job of achieving that. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the whole team worked well; the staff and the associate staff worked as a team. We worked very closely with the authorizers. I say to my colleagues, ``There isn't anything in this bill that's not approved by at least the chairman and the members of the authorizing committee so that what we have here is a team effort.'' Mr. Chairman, obviously we are going to have differences, and that will be reflected in the amendments, some substantial policy issue differences. I will say at the outset, ``We'll do everything we can to expedite this so Members can get home but not in any way stifle debate in the process.'' I am going to be very brief in my opening comments here. I think it boiled down to three areas, as I would see it, given the constraints of the budget reductions. First of all, we had the must-dos. The must-dos were keeping the parks open, keeping the Smithsonian open, keeping the visitor facilities at Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management open to the American people. Two hundred sixty million Americans enjoy the public lands, and they enjoy them in many ways. They enjoy them in terms of looking into the Grand Canyon and seeing a magnificent thing created by our Creator. They likewise enjoy going out and fishing in a stream or hunting in a national forest. They enjoy going to a Fish and Wildlife facility to see how we propagate the species of fish and how we nurture the fishing industry. They enjoy going to the Bureau of Land Management facilities, the millions of acres. So, Mr. Chairman, we made every effort to do those things that the public enjoys, and we held the operating funds at roughly a flat level given our constraints, meaning that we would in no way restrict public access to these great facilities that people care a lot about, and about a third of the United States is public land owned by all of the people of this Nation, and we make every effort to insure that their experience with that will be very enjoyable, and that led to the second category of things, and that is the need-to-dos. As I see it, the need-to-dos were to insure that sanitary facilities at our national parks, and forests and other facilities were good. The need-to-dos included fixing a road if it is in bad shape. It included finishing buildings that were under way. I say to my colleagues, ``You can't stop a construction job in midstream, and those things had to be taken care of, and we have done so.'' The third group was the nice-to-dos, things that are nice if we had the money. There are a lot of activities that we could no longer afford to do. Many of the grant programs had to be terminated, some of the research programs in energy. We had to downscale land acquisition 78 percent. We put in, of course, some money for emergencies, but essentially we will not be doing additional land acquisition because I tell my colleagues, ``When you buy lands, you have to take care of it, and that gives you enormous downstream costs.'' We did some construction where it was necessary to finish buildings, but we do limit new construction. We limit new programs so that we had some tough cuts that we had to make in the things that are nice to do. Mr. Chairman, we just had a lot of discussion on the NEA, and of course the NEH is similar to that. We have had change. We eliminated the National Biological Survey, and rather than that we have a natural resource science arm in the U.S. Geological Survey. But we are not getting into that now because that will come up to the debate. I think we have addressed energy security. We want to be sure that the United States will be secure in the future, that we will have energy independence, that we will not have to depend totally on foreign sources, and so we have addressed that in our bill to the best of our ability. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is our responsibility, and in the bill we said at the outset we are going to take care of education, the basic education, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the basic health. That is the responsibility [[Page H 6930]] of the Federal Government, and as much as possible we have level funded that along, as I mentioned earlier, with what we were able to do in keeping parks and so on open. There are lot of other things I could say about this legislation. I simply want to say again I think it represents common sense, I think it represents a responsible use of the funds available. I endorse the fact that we are downsizing the budget, that we are going to get on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years. We do not fund programs that have large outyear costs simply because we would not be able to address those in the future. I just want to close, because I think it reflects the overall philosophy in this budget, with a statement by Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, to the Committee on the Budget, and he said, and I quote: I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that most Americans believe that their children will live at a standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that probably would be eliminated and that they would look forward to their children doing better than they. That is a significant statement because it says very clearly from one of the economic leaders of this Nation that, if we can balance the budget, we will leave a legacy for our children of a better standard of living than we have, and that to me is what this is all about. That is what we are trying to do here, and not only do we want to try and leave a legacy of a better standard of living by using our resources more wisely, but we are also leaving a legacy, in my judgment, in the way we have handled the responsibilities of public lands that will be even better for their enjoyment, and that is the challenge we face as we deal with the amendments here today. We will try to keep that in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'' In this bill I think we are responsibly exercising that important role. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask that a table detailing the various accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record. [[Page H 6931]] TH13JY95.000 [[Page H 6932]] TH13JY95.001 [[Page H 6933]] TH13JY95.002 [[Page H 6934]] TH13JY95.003 [[Page H 6935]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, and he is my good friend, and I have differed on an Interior appropriations bill I think for the first time in how long have you been on the committee, Ralph? Twenty years? Twenty years we have been in agreement on the bills, and the reason for that, I think more than any other, is the fact that the bill did not suffer from malnutrition. The heavy hand of the full chairman of the committee was felt immediately by the Interior Subcommittee. Our 692(b) allocation was cut by more than a billion dollars on the first go-around. On the second go-around on the 602(b), we were cutting another $17 million dollars. So, there is a lot of PR work for the chairman and for me to do with the chairman of the full committee if we want to be treated as we should be treated. This is America's bill. This is the bill that fosters our natural resources. This is the bill that is working on providing energy savings. This is the bill that provides for cultural enrichment throughout the United States. {time} 1215 Yet, as a result of the 602(b) allocation, we just do not have the funds with which to carry on the kind of activities that we ought to. Our natural resources are going to suffer. My good friend, the chairman, indicated that we are keeping the parks open. That is not enough, The Grand Canyon, as the gentleman said, will still be there and people will still be able to see the Grand Canyon, but they ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon in comfortable facilities. They ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon driving on roads that do not have ruts and ditches. They ought to be sure that their safety is protected as they go through the national parks. I do not know that the funds we have provided here will allow that. Construction for the parks, construction for Fish and Wildlife, construction funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, have all been cut back. I do not know that I can use the phrase ``worst of all,'' but the Indian people are going to take a very big hit in this bill. The protection of our environment will be severely diminished as a result of what we do in this bill. Of course, we have been arguing about the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services for 2 days now. The Endowments have been cut by at least 40 percent. That is a huge cut. Our cultural resources are going to suffer. The program to help the needy people with their problems of weatherization, during the cold of winter, and the heat of summer is being cut. We have a program in our bill that enables the needy to obtain a small amount of funding to improve their physical properties so that the rigors of the winters in cities like Chicago or in States like Minnesota or New England will not be felt as keenly as they are going to be felt now, because there will not be funds with which they could help themselves. I talked about welfare for the needy, and in this bill, welfare for the needy will be cut. But Western welfare, welfare for the Western States; for example, the program to provide payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, is increased. In a total bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the West, is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for Western miners has taken new life. In our bill last year, we approved a moratorium on providing the sale of national lands to miners for $2.95 an acre, lands that have subsequently been sold on many occasions for huge sums of money to big mining companies. This giveaway of public lands will now start again. The patent moratorium is not in this bill. Nothing is done to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Western States and localities will also be able to build roads through existing parks, refuges, forests, and public lands unabated. There is much pain in this fiscal year 1996 bill, and it takes various forms. Agencies are being eliminated, programs are being terminated, programs are being phased out. Hard working people are going to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman. At least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior will be laid off. This bill does have some good features. I congratulate the chairman for that. I do hope that the other body, when it considers this bill, will take the steps that are necessary to maintain the vital functions that are carried out in this bill. But other programs have not been cut. Welfare for the needy may be cut but western welfare in the form of payments in lieu of taxes is up. In a bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the west is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for western miners has new life. The giveaway of public lands will start again because this bill, unlike the fiscal year 1995 appropriation law, does nothing to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Under the bill western States and localities can build roads through existing parks, refuges, forest, and public lands unabated. There is too much pain in this fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. The pain began with the 602b allocation for this bill. This bill is subject to a larger percentage reduction than any other appropriation bill. At $11.9 billion in new budget authority, this bill is $1.6 billion below 1995 and $1.9 billion below the President's request. What form does the pain take? Agencies are being eliminated; programs are being terminated immediately; programs are being phased out; and hard working people are going to lose their jobs, with at least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior subject to a reduction in force. indian programs Let me speak first to the programs that serve and honor the Indian people. I am grateful that the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are maintained at the 1995 level. But I know even at the fiscal year 1995 levels, these programs will not come close to meeting the needs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are $31 million below the President's request at a time when student enrollment is escalating rapidly; the Indian Health Service is $96 million below the President's request. With medical inflation and a growing Indian population, this means that health care will be reduced in a very real way. Among the most prominent terminations in this bill is the Indian Education Program administered by the Department of Education. It would be easier to accept this $81 million cut if at least some of this money had been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs. But that was not done. This is a program that has enhanced the education of nonreservation Indians across the country. But this is not the end of the insult to the Indian people. This mark limits the ability of the Indian people to defend themselves in water rights cases. Even at the $15 million 1995 level, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is unable to meet requests from 30 tribes who need technical and legal assistance in defending their water rights. With a $5 million reduction, the 1995 level will be reduced by one-third and even more tribes will remain unsupported. I view this an abrogation of our trust responsibility to Indian nations. This marks takes away the ability of the Indian people to help themselves through loan guarantees. If this mark is approved, the U.S. Government will be breaking yet another promise to the American Indian people. This mark will delay, if not totally stop, the much needed Smithsonian facility at Suitland that would store and conserve the Heye collection of Indian artifacts which will be the central feature of the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum. Self-governance for Indian tribes, with these budget reductions, will be delayed and the momentum generated in recent years for self- governance lost. I believe self-governance is working and should be encouraged instead of stifled through budget cuts. Heaped upon all of this is the complete elimination of community economic development grants, community development technical assistance, and the Indian arts and crafts board. And this bill sets in motion termination of Federal support for the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. In total, what is before us today for Indian people is $450 million below what the President requested, an 11-percent reduction for one of the neediest groups in America. [[Page H 6936]] Energy programs Moving on to the Department of Energy, I think we all can take great pride in the successes resulting from our investments in energy efficiency technologies. New lighting technology, new windows and efforts to produce more efficient automobiles are all paying off. Now, many of these efforts will be reduced, and eventually eliminated. One of the most disappointing things in this bill is that it slashes the low income weatherization program in half, a $107 million reduction. This is done at the same time the committee ignores the President's request to delay $155 million in clean coal technology subsidies for industry. Do we really want to continue corporate welfare at the expense of elderly poor people? If this cut is not reversed, efforts to reduce overall energy usage and reduce energy costs for elderly people will be extremely limited. cultural programs Of course, the proposed decreases in the appropriations for cultural programs is an urgent concern. The cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities which exceed 40 percent and the cut for the Institute of Museum Services, which exceeds 25 percent, are out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill and for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services the reduction is out of proportion to the recommendations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. I wonder if people understand fully the impact these cuts will have on our culture. Performances will be canceled, museums will close their doors earlier, and art education opportunities in our schools will be cut back sharply. Every segment of American society will suffer from these draconian cuts. science programs Not only is this bill unfriendly to cultural programs, it buries biological science. It buries it in the U.S. Geological Survey after cutting biological research by almost one-third and shackles researchers to Federal land. But the creatures of this great land of ours are not restricted to Federal lands. Lets think about what we are doing. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility for migratory birds as well as international treaties protecting these birds. These migratory birds do not know the boundaries of Federal land. Provisions in this bill though keep the Secretary from doing any science, any research on anything but Federal lands. If there are threats to our waterfowl on non-Federal lands, the Secretary could not study it even if private landowners ask to have their properties studied. Why at a time when duck numbers are finally increasing as a result of combined Federal, State, and private efforts, would we want to place obstacles to the progress now underway? Is that what we want? I think not. But this bill would do that. Volunteers are even banned by this bill, if they offer their talents to help resource science and research. Let me give one example of what this will mean to one program, the breeding bird survey. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, started in 1966, is the only continental survey program specifically designed to obtain population trend data on all species of birds. At least 4,000 volunteers contribute to this survey. Without their data, it would be extremely difficult to detect declines or increases in our country's bird populations. No one has ever questioned the authenticity of this information and it come to us at no cost. I do not know what public policy purpose is served by banning the use of volunteers. short on dollars, long on legislation This is bill, as I have documented, short on dollars; yet, it is long on legislative provisions. The bill requires committee approval for new wildlife refuges. The bill amends fee language for refuges. The bill mandates peer review for resources research in the Geological Survey. The bill permits giving away Bureau of Mines facilities. The bill amends the American Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990. The bill authorizes and executes the sell of strategic petroleum reserve oil. The bill terminates the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and transfers its responsibilities to other agencies. The bill establishes a new fee program for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Forest Service; and The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment restrictions and directions. Beyond that, the Endangered Species Act is circumvented by not providing money for listing species so they can receive the full protection of the Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is being circumvented by taking away the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to respond to a permit application for a golf course which would disturb valuable wetlands in Lake Jackson, TX. The California Desert Protection Act is circumvented by taking away all but $1 for the National Park Service to operate the Mojave National Preserve and returning the management to the Bureau of Land Management. With this bill, the first of the national parks will be closed. How many more will follow? moratoria And we find that moratoria are OK in some instances but not okay in others. Moratoria are not OK to stop the give away of patents under the 1872 mining law. But a moratoria is acceptable to stop promulgation of an RS 2477 rulemaking, a rulemaking that would prevent the potential despoliation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. This bill does include a continuation of the moratoria on Outer Continental Shelf leasing including Bristol Bay in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington on the west coast as well as certain Florida areas and east coast areas. land and water conservation fund While I am relieved there is some money for land acquisition, unlike the scorched earth policy of the House budget resolution, the lack of money can only lead to future problems. For many willing sellers, the Government is the only possible buyer. Ongoing acquisitions which have been phased over several years can not be completed. We will have broken commitments with those individuals and concerns that entered into agreements. Of the $51.5 million in the bill related to the land and water conservation fund, only $23 million is for actual acquisition of land. The balance is to administer the program. The Secretary of the Interior asked for money to help local areas with habitat conservation plans by giving land acquisition grants to State and local governments, a request that was denied. Turning a blind eye to this problem serves only to undermine efforts to improve the Endangered Species Act. The North American wetlands conservation fund is cut in half with the understanding that it will be terminated next year, another blow to successful efforts to strengthen the number of migratory waterfowl. conclusion Given the disproportionately large reduction this subcommittee received from the full Appropriations Committee, large cuts are inevitable and regrettable. One of the great strengths and appeals of this bill is the wide variety of programs it covers. The all-America bill as I used to call it. The remarkable natural resources of this country, our magnificent cultural resources, the programs that help people, the energy research programs--unfortunately, all will be diminished by the provisions in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very good member of our committee and a Member who has done great service on handling the Forest Service issues and who brings to it a lot of knowledge. (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our Parks and Forest Services are met. The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made. It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has been done in this bill. We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it is moving in the right direction. [[Page H 6937]] We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national forests around. This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 4.3 billion board feet. We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale revenues and income taxes. Although the road construction account has been cut, we have increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for a long time, and I would like to set the record straight. First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed protection through better road design, improves safety for road system users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to other emergencies. The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed. Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for salvage sales and forest restoration projects. This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive harvest methods than those used here. For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a responsibility to protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that. We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill. The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less destructive forest fires. Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward. I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard to personnel stationed in the field. It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner that reduces bureaucratic requirements. Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at the outset that I think all of us serving on this committee have a deep and abiding love for the responsibilities that come with the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our subcommittee chairman. There is no more decent or thoughtful Member of this body. He has been given an incredibly difficult task to manage the responsibilities that we have within the budget constraints. And while I know he would have liked to have done more and better, he has done well with what was made available to us. It is also an extraordinary privilege to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking member on this subcommittee. There are a number of good things in this bill. But there are also too many instances where I think it falls very seriously short of what should be done for the proper protection and proper management of our public lands and resources, for the education of native Americans children, and for continuing sound policies about the development and use of energy. It provides no money for endangered species prelisting work, for instance; that is, for efforts to avoid the necessity of adding species to the list protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is a prescription for increasing, not diminishing, the conflicts about implementing that law, and is extremely unwise and shortsighted. So are funding restrictions for basic biological research, restrictions on the use of volunteers and access voluntarily to private property. The bill does not include the moratorium that should be there for patenting mining claims until we have a revision of the mining law of 1872. In area after area, this bill puts commercial interests ahead of science, education, proper management and protection of our natural resources, our historical and cultural resources, our human resources. There will be amendments offered to correct some of these defects. I will support those. But I am afraid that unless the bill is radically revised, and the chances of that are not great, it will be difficult to say that it deserves to be enacted. This bill, more than any other that comes before this body, is about the profound trust and stewardship responsibilities that this Congress has for our [[Page H 6938]] national treasures, for our natural treasures. I am afraid our descendants will look back on these actions and ask how in the world we could so shortchange our trust and our stewardship responsibilities. Tragedy occurs, Mr. Chairman, when we know better but we do not do better, and I fear today we are writing a tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who brings a wealth of knowledge as a rancher to some of the tough problems that confront us, as well as a leader in the Western matters and with the cattle association, and other things. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to give my sense of appreciation for the kind of work that goes on in a committee with as diverse a responsibility as is inculcated into the authorization in the realm of what is known as the Committee on Resources. I want to say that Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates are some of the finest people I ever worked with and had the opportunity to work with and to deal with in this Congress of the United States, along with the other members of the committee itself. This is my second go-around on that committee, an enormous responsibility. I want to say, too, to the staffs that back us up, that there are no better people on this Earth who are more learned or a more professional group in the world than the staffs that support the committee work that we do day in and day out. Without them, it would not be possible to put this together, particularly at a time like this when we are cutting back, reducing the size of Government, but yet maintaining that sense of responsibility that is paramount to this entire function. That word ``function'' means an awful lot. Because if you do not understand what the function of some of these programs are, then you are hard put to come up with some solutions to some of the things we are trying to do. These folks have done an outstanding job. I wanted to compliment them all and say it is great serving with you. I hope that those of you who are out there furiously writing new amendments to this bill would stop and listen just once and say do I really understand what the function of this particular element of this bill is, how does it work. If you do not, then skinny yourself over here and talk to some of these people that I just referred to on the staffs, and it will save us an awful lot of talking time, because right now we need to reduce the time and expenditure on some of these bills. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our coastal resources. For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas. {time} 1230 While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas that depend on a healthy coastal environment. In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or preleasing activities. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with the Endangered Species Act. I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the needs of the Nation as a whole. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any further cuts in those programs. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost sensitivity. Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget. Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly. As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, $1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995. An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. [[Page H 6939]] The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects. On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years. H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated to be terminated. On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is welcomed by several county administrators. In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can produce a bill that we will all be proud of. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure that is before us. Frankly, it warrants opposition because of the priorities, because the hand that was dealt to the appropriators under the allocation system is inadequate to meet the responsibilities that we are sworn to discharge. The money is not there. Obviously, you can shift money around and do a little for operation and maintenance in the parks, but then you are denied to buy the in-holdings of lands and the land/water conservation or in other areas. The money is not there, and this bill ought to be rejected because it does not permit us to exercise our responsibilities in a way that is effective. We are going to see we have a $7 billion backlog in parks or a $9 billion backlog in terms of responsibilities. That is going to grow under this measure. Under anyone's evaluation, we do not put a dent in the backlog. In fact, we add to it. The other reason that this bill has to be rejected, and there are many such examples in the bill, where it is inadequate, the elimination of essential programs like the weatherization program, the energy programs, these are working programs. They work. They are not just for a time of crisis. They are the way we avoid crisis. The other reason is that this measure is not just an appropriations bill, this is a whole policy bill. In Congress, we separate policy and authorization from the actual appropriation. The allocation of dollars actually funding programs is essential. That is an essential decision which is supposed to be kept separate. We have always had a little overlap. But in this bill we simply circumvent the policy process completely in many significant areas. We are rewriting the Endangered Species Act. We are rewriting law after law in this legislation, rewriting those laws, in fact, in a way in which we are not able to have essential debate. My colleagues wonder why we are spending more time on the appropriations bill on the floor. I can tell you, because when you consolidate the appropriation process, one that is highly controversial because of the nature of the cuts that are coming down this year and the strong disagreement in terms of those priorities, and with an entire wholesale rewrite of many laws that affect the management of our forests, management of our park system, fee issues, issue after issue, the Endangered Species Act, the issue with regard to mining law and whether or not we are going to have a moratorium, when you combine all of this into a single legislative bill, you have bought into a significant responsibility. I have spent some 19 years in this body working on parks and public lands issues, as an example. I think I know a little bit about it. I do not know everything. As my colleague, Congressman Udall, used to say, there are two types of Members of Congress: ``those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know.'' Obviously, we are always guided by the fact that we are trying to learn in this process, as I am sure my colleagues would agree. But the fact that you consolidate into this measure dozens of policy changes that you do and the other aspects are obviously going to result in a significant policy path changes. This should not be done. Maybe the chairmen of the various authorizing committees approved of this, but that does not make a majority. That does not provide us with the in-depth debate and hearings and other aspects that are supposed to take place in terms of public participation to at least a limited degree. So this bill fails in terms of process. It fails in terms of priorities, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, I think it is appropriate to review the mission and purpose of the Department of Interior as outlined in the U.S. Government Manual (1993/94): As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. Similar analysis and reflection would apply to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the sister agency which shares substantial responsibilities for conservation and preservation of our natural and cultural legacy also is addressed in this measure. I cannot support H.R. 1977 because it doesn't provide the Interior Department or the Forest Service with the resources they need to carry out their stated mission. This is an unfortunate move away from a core conservation and preservation ethic that is basic to the definition and culture of the American people. The policies and programs in place to carry out the mission of the Interior Department are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone, rather they were uniquely derived from years of deliberation, of listening and responding to the core conservation and preservation values and ethics of the American people. Significant programs--the Land Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] and Historic Preservation Fund [HPF] are cut to the point of not being able to fill the backlog or immediate need. Of the one billion of funds generated, only 6-7 percent allocated for its intended purposes. In their zeal to shun Federal conservation efforts the majority isn't even making sensible choices in funding priorities. For example, zero funding listing and prelisting programs for endangered species and eliminating the National Biological Service demonstrate the height of hypocrisy on the part of the majority. Problems in managing our Federal resources will not go away just because we decide to quit addressing them, and not addressing them is certain to cost the American people more in the long run. I too want to decrease the Federal deficit. But the most sensible way to do that is through improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Interior Department programs or other funding of agencies with this measure. Many of the programs seriously underfunded or targeted for elimination in this bill are working. Improving programs that work goes a lot [[Page H 6940]] farther in reducing the Federal deficit than cutting funding and hoping the problem goes away. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all prelisting activities until the ESA is reauthorized. The $4.5 million cut from the FWS budget for prelisting activities is vital to the continuation of a highly successful program designed to prevent the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. There are over 4,000 species now under consideration for possible listing. Many of these species could be conserved through simple and inexpensive programs at the Federal, State, and local land management levels. The Fish and Wildlife Service candidate conservation program serves as an impetus to establishing conservation and stabilization activities before the species reaches critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to criticize the FWS for listing species without giving that agency the opportunity to conserve species before they reach critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to cry for reduced spending and greater economic efficiency while gutting a program that decreases the need for future costly emergency recovery actions. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all listing activities for endangered and threatened species, thereby extending the current moratorium. The majority is evading the legislative process by using agency appropriations to legislate national policy. By denying FWS any ability to conserve species proactively, Congress is ensuring further decline and the need for drastic and expensive actions to save species. In addition, there are no exceptions in this budget cut for emergency listings or for listing plant species which are potential sources of medicine. Plants, animals and people cannot cling to life waiting for the legislative process to run its course. The submersion of the National Biological Service into the National Geological Survey is another glaring illustration of fear run amok. There is legitimate room for debate over the merits of what the NBS or any other government agency does or how much funding should be provided for that work. However, the allegations leveled at the NBS, largely unfounded, are being used to justify elimination of the NBS. It is hypocritical for this Congress to call for better science and then deny funding for efforts specifically set up to conduct unbiased science. H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, severely crippling the efforts of the Federal Government to achieve consensus on policy actions and short changing the key efforts which backstop local nonprofit and private preservation efforts. Historic preservation provides a twofold benefit--preserving historic properties while helping communities achieve the economic advantages that occur as a result of historic preservation. It seems Members who take deficit reduction seriously would see the significant benefit that flow from a program that efficiently achieves a national goal while generating revenue to participating communities. Beyond these specifics the moratoria to prevent the public land giveaways under the 1872 mining laws are not included. Elimination of the essential weatherization program, appliance development commercialization program and other energy efficiency programs. Most energy conservation programs have been severely cut. Unfortunately this measure bans AmeriCorps funding initiated under the National Service law in spite of the fact that it was self funded by the 1993 law. The majority claims that their bill strikes a balance between the dual goals of reducing the deficit and protecting and enhancing the Nation's rich natural and cultural resources. This bill does no such thing and in the process, poorly serves the needs of the American people. It's certainly not a good measure we can and should do better. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a newcomer in terms of service but an oldcomer in terms of knowledge to the subcommittee. The gentleman brings a great perspective on Western issues, particularly as they affect the State of Washington, and the areas surrounding, on forests and some of the river problems. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks. I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this legislation in the fairest way possible. I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government. This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go through this very important bill. I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his forbearance in working with us on that amendment. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years. This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise. I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that I think both the gentleman and I would like it to. The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is a virtue. The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense. It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these natural resources, particularly our national parks. But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department of Energy'

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6929-H6966] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1977. {time} 1203 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first of all I want to thank those of my colleagues that supported the rule because I think we have a good bill here given the fact that we are under the constraints of the Budget Act which reduces our amount of money over 10 percent, and also I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle that we had a very bipartisan subcommittee. We worked well together. We tried to be as totally nonpartisan as we had to make these difficult choices, and we did as much as possible to address the challenges of the Interior and related agencies' responsibility with the funds that were available, and I think on balance we did a good job of achieving that. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the whole team worked well; the staff and the associate staff worked as a team. We worked very closely with the authorizers. I say to my colleagues, ``There isn't anything in this bill that's not approved by at least the chairman and the members of the authorizing committee so that what we have here is a team effort.'' Mr. Chairman, obviously we are going to have differences, and that will be reflected in the amendments, some substantial policy issue differences. I will say at the outset, ``We'll do everything we can to expedite this so Members can get home but not in any way stifle debate in the process.'' I am going to be very brief in my opening comments here. I think it boiled down to three areas, as I would see it, given the constraints of the budget reductions. First of all, we had the must-dos. The must-dos were keeping the parks open, keeping the Smithsonian open, keeping the visitor facilities at Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management open to the American people. Two hundred sixty million Americans enjoy the public lands, and they enjoy them in many ways. They enjoy them in terms of looking into the Grand Canyon and seeing a magnificent thing created by our Creator. They likewise enjoy going out and fishing in a stream or hunting in a national forest. They enjoy going to a Fish and Wildlife facility to see how we propagate the species of fish and how we nurture the fishing industry. They enjoy going to the Bureau of Land Management facilities, the millions of acres. So, Mr. Chairman, we made every effort to do those things that the public enjoys, and we held the operating funds at roughly a flat level given our constraints, meaning that we would in no way restrict public access to these great facilities that people care a lot about, and about a third of the United States is public land owned by all of the people of this Nation, and we make every effort to insure that their experience with that will be very enjoyable, and that led to the second category of things, and that is the need-to-dos. As I see it, the need-to-dos were to insure that sanitary facilities at our national parks, and forests and other facilities were good. The need-to-dos included fixing a road if it is in bad shape. It included finishing buildings that were under way. I say to my colleagues, ``You can't stop a construction job in midstream, and those things had to be taken care of, and we have done so.'' The third group was the nice-to-dos, things that are nice if we had the money. There are a lot of activities that we could no longer afford to do. Many of the grant programs had to be terminated, some of the research programs in energy. We had to downscale land acquisition 78 percent. We put in, of course, some money for emergencies, but essentially we will not be doing additional land acquisition because I tell my colleagues, ``When you buy lands, you have to take care of it, and that gives you enormous downstream costs.'' We did some construction where it was necessary to finish buildings, but we do limit new construction. We limit new programs so that we had some tough cuts that we had to make in the things that are nice to do. Mr. Chairman, we just had a lot of discussion on the NEA, and of course the NEH is similar to that. We have had change. We eliminated the National Biological Survey, and rather than that we have a natural resource science arm in the U.S. Geological Survey. But we are not getting into that now because that will come up to the debate. I think we have addressed energy security. We want to be sure that the United States will be secure in the future, that we will have energy independence, that we will not have to depend totally on foreign sources, and so we have addressed that in our bill to the best of our ability. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is our responsibility, and in the bill we said at the outset we are going to take care of education, the basic education, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the basic health. That is the responsibility [[Page H 6930]] of the Federal Government, and as much as possible we have level funded that along, as I mentioned earlier, with what we were able to do in keeping parks and so on open. There are lot of other things I could say about this legislation. I simply want to say again I think it represents common sense, I think it represents a responsible use of the funds available. I endorse the fact that we are downsizing the budget, that we are going to get on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years. We do not fund programs that have large outyear costs simply because we would not be able to address those in the future. I just want to close, because I think it reflects the overall philosophy in this budget, with a statement by Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, to the Committee on the Budget, and he said, and I quote: I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that most Americans believe that their children will live at a standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that probably would be eliminated and that they would look forward to their children doing better than they. That is a significant statement because it says very clearly from one of the economic leaders of this Nation that, if we can balance the budget, we will leave a legacy for our children of a better standard of living than we have, and that to me is what this is all about. That is what we are trying to do here, and not only do we want to try and leave a legacy of a better standard of living by using our resources more wisely, but we are also leaving a legacy, in my judgment, in the way we have handled the responsibilities of public lands that will be even better for their enjoyment, and that is the challenge we face as we deal with the amendments here today. We will try to keep that in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'' In this bill I think we are responsibly exercising that important role. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask that a table detailing the various accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record. [[Page H 6931]] TH13JY95.000 [[Page H 6932]] TH13JY95.001 [[Page H 6933]] TH13JY95.002 [[Page H 6934]] TH13JY95.003 [[Page H 6935]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, and he is my good friend, and I have differed on an Interior appropriations bill I think for the first time in how long have you been on the committee, Ralph? Twenty years? Twenty years we have been in agreement on the bills, and the reason for that, I think more than any other, is the fact that the bill did not suffer from malnutrition. The heavy hand of the full chairman of the committee was felt immediately by the Interior Subcommittee. Our 692(b) allocation was cut by more than a billion dollars on the first go-around. On the second go-around on the 602(b), we were cutting another $17 million dollars. So, there is a lot of PR work for the chairman and for me to do with the chairman of the full committee if we want to be treated as we should be treated. This is America's bill. This is the bill that fosters our natural resources. This is the bill that is working on providing energy savings. This is the bill that provides for cultural enrichment throughout the United States. {time} 1215 Yet, as a result of the 602(b) allocation, we just do not have the funds with which to carry on the kind of activities that we ought to. Our natural resources are going to suffer. My good friend, the chairman, indicated that we are keeping the parks open. That is not enough, The Grand Canyon, as the gentleman said, will still be there and people will still be able to see the Grand Canyon, but they ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon in comfortable facilities. They ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon driving on roads that do not have ruts and ditches. They ought to be sure that their safety is protected as they go through the national parks. I do not know that the funds we have provided here will allow that. Construction for the parks, construction for Fish and Wildlife, construction funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, have all been cut back. I do not know that I can use the phrase ``worst of all,'' but the Indian people are going to take a very big hit in this bill. The protection of our environment will be severely diminished as a result of what we do in this bill. Of course, we have been arguing about the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services for 2 days now. The Endowments have been cut by at least 40 percent. That is a huge cut. Our cultural resources are going to suffer. The program to help the needy people with their problems of weatherization, during the cold of winter, and the heat of summer is being cut. We have a program in our bill that enables the needy to obtain a small amount of funding to improve their physical properties so that the rigors of the winters in cities like Chicago or in States like Minnesota or New England will not be felt as keenly as they are going to be felt now, because there will not be funds with which they could help themselves. I talked about welfare for the needy, and in this bill, welfare for the needy will be cut. But Western welfare, welfare for the Western States; for example, the program to provide payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, is increased. In a total bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the West, is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for Western miners has taken new life. In our bill last year, we approved a moratorium on providing the sale of national lands to miners for $2.95 an acre, lands that have subsequently been sold on many occasions for huge sums of money to big mining companies. This giveaway of public lands will now start again. The patent moratorium is not in this bill. Nothing is done to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Western States and localities will also be able to build roads through existing parks, refuges, forests, and public lands unabated. There is much pain in this fiscal year 1996 bill, and it takes various forms. Agencies are being eliminated, programs are being terminated, programs are being phased out. Hard working people are going to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman. At least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior will be laid off. This bill does have some good features. I congratulate the chairman for that. I do hope that the other body, when it considers this bill, will take the steps that are necessary to maintain the vital functions that are carried out in this bill. But other programs have not been cut. Welfare for the needy may be cut but western welfare in the form of payments in lieu of taxes is up. In a bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the west is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for western miners has new life. The giveaway of public lands will start again because this bill, unlike the fiscal year 1995 appropriation law, does nothing to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Under the bill western States and localities can build roads through existing parks, refuges, forest, and public lands unabated. There is too much pain in this fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. The pain began with the 602b allocation for this bill. This bill is subject to a larger percentage reduction than any other appropriation bill. At $11.9 billion in new budget authority, this bill is $1.6 billion below 1995 and $1.9 billion below the President's request. What form does the pain take? Agencies are being eliminated; programs are being terminated immediately; programs are being phased out; and hard working people are going to lose their jobs, with at least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior subject to a reduction in force. indian programs Let me speak first to the programs that serve and honor the Indian people. I am grateful that the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are maintained at the 1995 level. But I know even at the fiscal year 1995 levels, these programs will not come close to meeting the needs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are $31 million below the President's request at a time when student enrollment is escalating rapidly; the Indian Health Service is $96 million below the President's request. With medical inflation and a growing Indian population, this means that health care will be reduced in a very real way. Among the most prominent terminations in this bill is the Indian Education Program administered by the Department of Education. It would be easier to accept this $81 million cut if at least some of this money had been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs. But that was not done. This is a program that has enhanced the education of nonreservation Indians across the country. But this is not the end of the insult to the Indian people. This mark limits the ability of the Indian people to defend themselves in water rights cases. Even at the $15 million 1995 level, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is unable to meet requests from 30 tribes who need technical and legal assistance in defending their water rights. With a $5 million reduction, the 1995 level will be reduced by one-third and even more tribes will remain unsupported. I view this an abrogation of our trust responsibility to Indian nations. This marks takes away the ability of the Indian people to help themselves through loan guarantees. If this mark is approved, the U.S. Government will be breaking yet another promise to the American Indian people. This mark will delay, if not totally stop, the much needed Smithsonian facility at Suitland that would store and conserve the Heye collection of Indian artifacts which will be the central feature of the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum. Self-governance for Indian tribes, with these budget reductions, will be delayed and the momentum generated in recent years for self- governance lost. I believe self-governance is working and should be encouraged instead of stifled through budget cuts. Heaped upon all of this is the complete elimination of community economic development grants, community development technical assistance, and the Indian arts and crafts board. And this bill sets in motion termination of Federal support for the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. In total, what is before us today for Indian people is $450 million below what the President requested, an 11-percent reduction for one of the neediest groups in America. [[Page H 6936]] Energy programs Moving on to the Department of Energy, I think we all can take great pride in the successes resulting from our investments in energy efficiency technologies. New lighting technology, new windows and efforts to produce more efficient automobiles are all paying off. Now, many of these efforts will be reduced, and eventually eliminated. One of the most disappointing things in this bill is that it slashes the low income weatherization program in half, a $107 million reduction. This is done at the same time the committee ignores the President's request to delay $155 million in clean coal technology subsidies for industry. Do we really want to continue corporate welfare at the expense of elderly poor people? If this cut is not reversed, efforts to reduce overall energy usage and reduce energy costs for elderly people will be extremely limited. cultural programs Of course, the proposed decreases in the appropriations for cultural programs is an urgent concern. The cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities which exceed 40 percent and the cut for the Institute of Museum Services, which exceeds 25 percent, are out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill and for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services the reduction is out of proportion to the recommendations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. I wonder if people understand fully the impact these cuts will have on our culture. Performances will be canceled, museums will close their doors earlier, and art education opportunities in our schools will be cut back sharply. Every segment of American society will suffer from these draconian cuts. science programs Not only is this bill unfriendly to cultural programs, it buries biological science. It buries it in the U.S. Geological Survey after cutting biological research by almost one-third and shackles researchers to Federal land. But the creatures of this great land of ours are not restricted to Federal lands. Lets think about what we are doing. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility for migratory birds as well as international treaties protecting these birds. These migratory birds do not know the boundaries of Federal land. Provisions in this bill though keep the Secretary from doing any science, any research on anything but Federal lands. If there are threats to our waterfowl on non-Federal lands, the Secretary could not study it even if private landowners ask to have their properties studied. Why at a time when duck numbers are finally increasing as a result of combined Federal, State, and private efforts, would we want to place obstacles to the progress now underway? Is that what we want? I think not. But this bill would do that. Volunteers are even banned by this bill, if they offer their talents to help resource science and research. Let me give one example of what this will mean to one program, the breeding bird survey. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, started in 1966, is the only continental survey program specifically designed to obtain population trend data on all species of birds. At least 4,000 volunteers contribute to this survey. Without their data, it would be extremely difficult to detect declines or increases in our country's bird populations. No one has ever questioned the authenticity of this information and it come to us at no cost. I do not know what public policy purpose is served by banning the use of volunteers. short on dollars, long on legislation This is bill, as I have documented, short on dollars; yet, it is long on legislative provisions. The bill requires committee approval for new wildlife refuges. The bill amends fee language for refuges. The bill mandates peer review for resources research in the Geological Survey. The bill permits giving away Bureau of Mines facilities. The bill amends the American Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990. The bill authorizes and executes the sell of strategic petroleum reserve oil. The bill terminates the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and transfers its responsibilities to other agencies. The bill establishes a new fee program for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Forest Service; and The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment restrictions and directions. Beyond that, the Endangered Species Act is circumvented by not providing money for listing species so they can receive the full protection of the Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is being circumvented by taking away the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to respond to a permit application for a golf course which would disturb valuable wetlands in Lake Jackson, TX. The California Desert Protection Act is circumvented by taking away all but $1 for the National Park Service to operate the Mojave National Preserve and returning the management to the Bureau of Land Management. With this bill, the first of the national parks will be closed. How many more will follow? moratoria And we find that moratoria are OK in some instances but not okay in others. Moratoria are not OK to stop the give away of patents under the 1872 mining law. But a moratoria is acceptable to stop promulgation of an RS 2477 rulemaking, a rulemaking that would prevent the potential despoliation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. This bill does include a continuation of the moratoria on Outer Continental Shelf leasing including Bristol Bay in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington on the west coast as well as certain Florida areas and east coast areas. land and water conservation fund While I am relieved there is some money for land acquisition, unlike the scorched earth policy of the House budget resolution, the lack of money can only lead to future problems. For many willing sellers, the Government is the only possible buyer. Ongoing acquisitions which have been phased over several years can not be completed. We will have broken commitments with those individuals and concerns that entered into agreements. Of the $51.5 million in the bill related to the land and water conservation fund, only $23 million is for actual acquisition of land. The balance is to administer the program. The Secretary of the Interior asked for money to help local areas with habitat conservation plans by giving land acquisition grants to State and local governments, a request that was denied. Turning a blind eye to this problem serves only to undermine efforts to improve the Endangered Species Act. The North American wetlands conservation fund is cut in half with the understanding that it will be terminated next year, another blow to successful efforts to strengthen the number of migratory waterfowl. conclusion Given the disproportionately large reduction this subcommittee received from the full Appropriations Committee, large cuts are inevitable and regrettable. One of the great strengths and appeals of this bill is the wide variety of programs it covers. The all-America bill as I used to call it. The remarkable natural resources of this country, our magnificent cultural resources, the programs that help people, the energy research programs--unfortunately, all will be diminished by the provisions in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very good member of our committee and a Member who has done great service on handling the Forest Service issues and who brings to it a lot of knowledge. (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our Parks and Forest Services are met. The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made. It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has been done in this bill. We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it is moving in the right direction. [[Page H 6937]] We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national forests around. This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 4.3 billion board feet. We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale revenues and income taxes. Although the road construction account has been cut, we have increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for a long time, and I would like to set the record straight. First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed protection through better road design, improves safety for road system users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to other emergencies. The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed. Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for salvage sales and forest restoration projects. This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive harvest methods than those used here. For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a responsibility to protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that. We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill. The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less destructive forest fires. Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward. I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard to personnel stationed in the field. It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner that reduces bureaucratic requirements. Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at the outset that I think all of us serving on this committee have a deep and abiding love for the responsibilities that come with the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our subcommittee chairman. There is no more decent or thoughtful Member of this body. He has been given an incredibly difficult task to manage the responsibilities that we have within the budget constraints. And while I know he would have liked to have done more and better, he has done well with what was made available to us. It is also an extraordinary privilege to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking member on this subcommittee. There are a number of good things in this bill. But there are also too many instances where I think it falls very seriously short of what should be done for the proper protection and proper management of our public lands and resources, for the education of native Americans children, and for continuing sound policies about the development and use of energy. It provides no money for endangered species prelisting work, for instance; that is, for efforts to avoid the necessity of adding species to the list protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is a prescription for increasing, not diminishing, the conflicts about implementing that law, and is extremely unwise and shortsighted. So are funding restrictions for basic biological research, restrictions on the use of volunteers and access voluntarily to private property. The bill does not include the moratorium that should be there for patenting mining claims until we have a revision of the mining law of 1872. In area after area, this bill puts commercial interests ahead of science, education, proper management and protection of our natural resources, our historical and cultural resources, our human resources. There will be amendments offered to correct some of these defects. I will support those. But I am afraid that unless the bill is radically revised, and the chances of that are not great, it will be difficult to say that it deserves to be enacted. This bill, more than any other that comes before this body, is about the profound trust and stewardship responsibilities that this Congress has for our [[Page H 6938]] national treasures, for our natural treasures. I am afraid our descendants will look back on these actions and ask how in the world we could so shortchange our trust and our stewardship responsibilities. Tragedy occurs, Mr. Chairman, when we know better but we do not do better, and I fear today we are writing a tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who brings a wealth of knowledge as a rancher to some of the tough problems that confront us, as well as a leader in the Western matters and with the cattle association, and other things. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to give my sense of appreciation for the kind of work that goes on in a committee with as diverse a responsibility as is inculcated into the authorization in the realm of what is known as the Committee on Resources. I want to say that Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates are some of the finest people I ever worked with and had the opportunity to work with and to deal with in this Congress of the United States, along with the other members of the committee itself. This is my second go-around on that committee, an enormous responsibility. I want to say, too, to the staffs that back us up, that there are no better people on this Earth who are more learned or a more professional group in the world than the staffs that support the committee work that we do day in and day out. Without them, it would not be possible to put this together, particularly at a time like this when we are cutting back, reducing the size of Government, but yet maintaining that sense of responsibility that is paramount to this entire function. That word ``function'' means an awful lot. Because if you do not understand what the function of some of these programs are, then you are hard put to come up with some solutions to some of the things we are trying to do. These folks have done an outstanding job. I wanted to compliment them all and say it is great serving with you. I hope that those of you who are out there furiously writing new amendments to this bill would stop and listen just once and say do I really understand what the function of this particular element of this bill is, how does it work. If you do not, then skinny yourself over here and talk to some of these people that I just referred to on the staffs, and it will save us an awful lot of talking time, because right now we need to reduce the time and expenditure on some of these bills. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our coastal resources. For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas. {time} 1230 While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas that depend on a healthy coastal environment. In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or preleasing activities. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with the Endangered Species Act. I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the needs of the Nation as a whole. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any further cuts in those programs. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost sensitivity. Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget. Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly. As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, $1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995. An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. [[Page H 6939]] The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects. On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years. H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated to be terminated. On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is welcomed by several county administrators. In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can produce a bill that we will all be proud of. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure that is before us. Frankly, it warrants opposition because of the priorities, because the hand that was dealt to the appropriators under the allocation system is inadequate to meet the responsibilities that we are sworn to discharge. The money is not there. Obviously, you can shift money around and do a little for operation and maintenance in the parks, but then you are denied to buy the in-holdings of lands and the land/water conservation or in other areas. The money is not there, and this bill ought to be rejected because it does not permit us to exercise our responsibilities in a way that is effective. We are going to see we have a $7 billion backlog in parks or a $9 billion backlog in terms of responsibilities. That is going to grow under this measure. Under anyone's evaluation, we do not put a dent in the backlog. In fact, we add to it. The other reason that this bill has to be rejected, and there are many such examples in the bill, where it is inadequate, the elimination of essential programs like the weatherization program, the energy programs, these are working programs. They work. They are not just for a time of crisis. They are the way we avoid crisis. The other reason is that this measure is not just an appropriations bill, this is a whole policy bill. In Congress, we separate policy and authorization from the actual appropriation. The allocation of dollars actually funding programs is essential. That is an essential decision which is supposed to be kept separate. We have always had a little overlap. But in this bill we simply circumvent the policy process completely in many significant areas. We are rewriting the Endangered Species Act. We are rewriting law after law in this legislation, rewriting those laws, in fact, in a way in which we are not able to have essential debate. My colleagues wonder why we are spending more time on the appropriations bill on the floor. I can tell you, because when you consolidate the appropriation process, one that is highly controversial because of the nature of the cuts that are coming down this year and the strong disagreement in terms of those priorities, and with an entire wholesale rewrite of many laws that affect the management of our forests, management of our park system, fee issues, issue after issue, the Endangered Species Act, the issue with regard to mining law and whether or not we are going to have a moratorium, when you combine all of this into a single legislative bill, you have bought into a significant responsibility. I have spent some 19 years in this body working on parks and public lands issues, as an example. I think I know a little bit about it. I do not know everything. As my colleague, Congressman Udall, used to say, there are two types of Members of Congress: ``those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know.'' Obviously, we are always guided by the fact that we are trying to learn in this process, as I am sure my colleagues would agree. But the fact that you consolidate into this measure dozens of policy changes that you do and the other aspects are obviously going to result in a significant policy path changes. This should not be done. Maybe the chairmen of the various authorizing committees approved of this, but that does not make a majority. That does not provide us with the in-depth debate and hearings and other aspects that are supposed to take place in terms of public participation to at least a limited degree. So this bill fails in terms of process. It fails in terms of priorities, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, I think it is appropriate to review the mission and purpose of the Department of Interior as outlined in the U.S. Government Manual (1993/94): As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. Similar analysis and reflection would apply to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the sister agency which shares substantial responsibilities for conservation and preservation of our natural and cultural legacy also is addressed in this measure. I cannot support H.R. 1977 because it doesn't provide the Interior Department or the Forest Service with the resources they need to carry out their stated mission. This is an unfortunate move away from a core conservation and preservation ethic that is basic to the definition and culture of the American people. The policies and programs in place to carry out the mission of the Interior Department are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone, rather they were uniquely derived from years of deliberation, of listening and responding to the core conservation and preservation values and ethics of the American people. Significant programs--the Land Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] and Historic Preservation Fund [HPF] are cut to the point of not being able to fill the backlog or immediate need. Of the one billion of funds generated, only 6-7 percent allocated for its intended purposes. In their zeal to shun Federal conservation efforts the majority isn't even making sensible choices in funding priorities. For example, zero funding listing and prelisting programs for endangered species and eliminating the National Biological Service demonstrate the height of hypocrisy on the part of the majority. Problems in managing our Federal resources will not go away just because we decide to quit addressing them, and not addressing them is certain to cost the American people more in the long run. I too want to decrease the Federal deficit. But the most sensible way to do that is through improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Interior Department programs or other funding of agencies with this measure. Many of the programs seriously underfunded or targeted for elimination in this bill are working. Improving programs that work goes a lot [[Page H 6940]] farther in reducing the Federal deficit than cutting funding and hoping the problem goes away. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all prelisting activities until the ESA is reauthorized. The $4.5 million cut from the FWS budget for prelisting activities is vital to the continuation of a highly successful program designed to prevent the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. There are over 4,000 species now under consideration for possible listing. Many of these species could be conserved through simple and inexpensive programs at the Federal, State, and local land management levels. The Fish and Wildlife Service candidate conservation program serves as an impetus to establishing conservation and stabilization activities before the species reaches critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to criticize the FWS for listing species without giving that agency the opportunity to conserve species before they reach critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to cry for reduced spending and greater economic efficiency while gutting a program that decreases the need for future costly emergency recovery actions. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all listing activities for endangered and threatened species, thereby extending the current moratorium. The majority is evading the legislative process by using agency appropriations to legislate national policy. By denying FWS any ability to conserve species proactively, Congress is ensuring further decline and the need for drastic and expensive actions to save species. In addition, there are no exceptions in this budget cut for emergency listings or for listing plant species which are potential sources of medicine. Plants, animals and people cannot cling to life waiting for the legislative process to run its course. The submersion of the National Biological Service into the National Geological Survey is another glaring illustration of fear run amok. There is legitimate room for debate over the merits of what the NBS or any other government agency does or how much funding should be provided for that work. However, the allegations leveled at the NBS, largely unfounded, are being used to justify elimination of the NBS. It is hypocritical for this Congress to call for better science and then deny funding for efforts specifically set up to conduct unbiased science. H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, severely crippling the efforts of the Federal Government to achieve consensus on policy actions and short changing the key efforts which backstop local nonprofit and private preservation efforts. Historic preservation provides a twofold benefit--preserving historic properties while helping communities achieve the economic advantages that occur as a result of historic preservation. It seems Members who take deficit reduction seriously would see the significant benefit that flow from a program that efficiently achieves a national goal while generating revenue to participating communities. Beyond these specifics the moratoria to prevent the public land giveaways under the 1872 mining laws are not included. Elimination of the essential weatherization program, appliance development commercialization program and other energy efficiency programs. Most energy conservation programs have been severely cut. Unfortunately this measure bans AmeriCorps funding initiated under the National Service law in spite of the fact that it was self funded by the 1993 law. The majority claims that their bill strikes a balance between the dual goals of reducing the deficit and protecting and enhancing the Nation's rich natural and cultural resources. This bill does no such thing and in the process, poorly serves the needs of the American people. It's certainly not a good measure we can and should do better. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a newcomer in terms of service but an oldcomer in terms of knowledge to the subcommittee. The gentleman brings a great perspective on Western issues, particularly as they affect the State of Washington, and the areas surrounding, on forests and some of the river problems. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks. I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this legislation in the fairest way possible. I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government. This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go through this very important bill. I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his forbearance in working with us on that amendment. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years. This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise. I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that I think both the gentleman and I would like it to. The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is a virtue. The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense. It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these natural resources, particularly our national parks. But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6929-H6966] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1977. {time} 1203 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first of all I want to thank those of my colleagues that supported the rule because I think we have a good bill here given the fact that we are under the constraints of the Budget Act which reduces our amount of money over 10 percent, and also I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle that we had a very bipartisan subcommittee. We worked well together. We tried to be as totally nonpartisan as we had to make these difficult choices, and we did as much as possible to address the challenges of the Interior and related agencies' responsibility with the funds that were available, and I think on balance we did a good job of achieving that. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the whole team worked well; the staff and the associate staff worked as a team. We worked very closely with the authorizers. I say to my colleagues, ``There isn't anything in this bill that's not approved by at least the chairman and the members of the authorizing committee so that what we have here is a team effort.'' Mr. Chairman, obviously we are going to have differences, and that will be reflected in the amendments, some substantial policy issue differences. I will say at the outset, ``We'll do everything we can to expedite this so Members can get home but not in any way stifle debate in the process.'' I am going to be very brief in my opening comments here. I think it boiled down to three areas, as I would see it, given the constraints of the budget reductions. First of all, we had the must-dos. The must-dos were keeping the parks open, keeping the Smithsonian open, keeping the visitor facilities at Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management open to the American people. Two hundred sixty million Americans enjoy the public lands, and they enjoy them in many ways. They enjoy them in terms of looking into the Grand Canyon and seeing a magnificent thing created by our Creator. They likewise enjoy going out and fishing in a stream or hunting in a national forest. They enjoy going to a Fish and Wildlife facility to see how we propagate the species of fish and how we nurture the fishing industry. They enjoy going to the Bureau of Land Management facilities, the millions of acres. So, Mr. Chairman, we made every effort to do those things that the public enjoys, and we held the operating funds at roughly a flat level given our constraints, meaning that we would in no way restrict public access to these great facilities that people care a lot about, and about a third of the United States is public land owned by all of the people of this Nation, and we make every effort to insure that their experience with that will be very enjoyable, and that led to the second category of things, and that is the need-to-dos. As I see it, the need-to-dos were to insure that sanitary facilities at our national parks, and forests and other facilities were good. The need-to-dos included fixing a road if it is in bad shape. It included finishing buildings that were under way. I say to my colleagues, ``You can't stop a construction job in midstream, and those things had to be taken care of, and we have done so.'' The third group was the nice-to-dos, things that are nice if we had the money. There are a lot of activities that we could no longer afford to do. Many of the grant programs had to be terminated, some of the research programs in energy. We had to downscale land acquisition 78 percent. We put in, of course, some money for emergencies, but essentially we will not be doing additional land acquisition because I tell my colleagues, ``When you buy lands, you have to take care of it, and that gives you enormous downstream costs.'' We did some construction where it was necessary to finish buildings, but we do limit new construction. We limit new programs so that we had some tough cuts that we had to make in the things that are nice to do. Mr. Chairman, we just had a lot of discussion on the NEA, and of course the NEH is similar to that. We have had change. We eliminated the National Biological Survey, and rather than that we have a natural resource science arm in the U.S. Geological Survey. But we are not getting into that now because that will come up to the debate. I think we have addressed energy security. We want to be sure that the United States will be secure in the future, that we will have energy independence, that we will not have to depend totally on foreign sources, and so we have addressed that in our bill to the best of our ability. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is our responsibility, and in the bill we said at the outset we are going to take care of education, the basic education, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the basic health. That is the responsibility [[Page H 6930]] of the Federal Government, and as much as possible we have level funded that along, as I mentioned earlier, with what we were able to do in keeping parks and so on open. There are lot of other things I could say about this legislation. I simply want to say again I think it represents common sense, I think it represents a responsible use of the funds available. I endorse the fact that we are downsizing the budget, that we are going to get on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years. We do not fund programs that have large outyear costs simply because we would not be able to address those in the future. I just want to close, because I think it reflects the overall philosophy in this budget, with a statement by Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, to the Committee on the Budget, and he said, and I quote: I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that most Americans believe that their children will live at a standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that probably would be eliminated and that they would look forward to their children doing better than they. That is a significant statement because it says very clearly from one of the economic leaders of this Nation that, if we can balance the budget, we will leave a legacy for our children of a better standard of living than we have, and that to me is what this is all about. That is what we are trying to do here, and not only do we want to try and leave a legacy of a better standard of living by using our resources more wisely, but we are also leaving a legacy, in my judgment, in the way we have handled the responsibilities of public lands that will be even better for their enjoyment, and that is the challenge we face as we deal with the amendments here today. We will try to keep that in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'' In this bill I think we are responsibly exercising that important role. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask that a table detailing the various accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record. [[Page H 6931]] TH13JY95.000 [[Page H 6932]] TH13JY95.001 [[Page H 6933]] TH13JY95.002 [[Page H 6934]] TH13JY95.003 [[Page H 6935]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, and he is my good friend, and I have differed on an Interior appropriations bill I think for the first time in how long have you been on the committee, Ralph? Twenty years? Twenty years we have been in agreement on the bills, and the reason for that, I think more than any other, is the fact that the bill did not suffer from malnutrition. The heavy hand of the full chairman of the committee was felt immediately by the Interior Subcommittee. Our 692(b) allocation was cut by more than a billion dollars on the first go-around. On the second go-around on the 602(b), we were cutting another $17 million dollars. So, there is a lot of PR work for the chairman and for me to do with the chairman of the full committee if we want to be treated as we should be treated. This is America's bill. This is the bill that fosters our natural resources. This is the bill that is working on providing energy savings. This is the bill that provides for cultural enrichment throughout the United States. {time} 1215 Yet, as a result of the 602(b) allocation, we just do not have the funds with which to carry on the kind of activities that we ought to. Our natural resources are going to suffer. My good friend, the chairman, indicated that we are keeping the parks open. That is not enough, The Grand Canyon, as the gentleman said, will still be there and people will still be able to see the Grand Canyon, but they ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon in comfortable facilities. They ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon driving on roads that do not have ruts and ditches. They ought to be sure that their safety is protected as they go through the national parks. I do not know that the funds we have provided here will allow that. Construction for the parks, construction for Fish and Wildlife, construction funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, have all been cut back. I do not know that I can use the phrase ``worst of all,'' but the Indian people are going to take a very big hit in this bill. The protection of our environment will be severely diminished as a result of what we do in this bill. Of course, we have been arguing about the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services for 2 days now. The Endowments have been cut by at least 40 percent. That is a huge cut. Our cultural resources are going to suffer. The program to help the needy people with their problems of weatherization, during the cold of winter, and the heat of summer is being cut. We have a program in our bill that enables the needy to obtain a small amount of funding to improve their physical properties so that the rigors of the winters in cities like Chicago or in States like Minnesota or New England will not be felt as keenly as they are going to be felt now, because there will not be funds with which they could help themselves. I talked about welfare for the needy, and in this bill, welfare for the needy will be cut. But Western welfare, welfare for the Western States; for example, the program to provide payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, is increased. In a total bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the West, is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for Western miners has taken new life. In our bill last year, we approved a moratorium on providing the sale of national lands to miners for $2.95 an acre, lands that have subsequently been sold on many occasions for huge sums of money to big mining companies. This giveaway of public lands will now start again. The patent moratorium is not in this bill. Nothing is done to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Western States and localities will also be able to build roads through existing parks, refuges, forests, and public lands unabated. There is much pain in this fiscal year 1996 bill, and it takes various forms. Agencies are being eliminated, programs are being terminated, programs are being phased out. Hard working people are going to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman. At least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior will be laid off. This bill does have some good features. I congratulate the chairman for that. I do hope that the other body, when it considers this bill, will take the steps that are necessary to maintain the vital functions that are carried out in this bill. But other programs have not been cut. Welfare for the needy may be cut but western welfare in the form of payments in lieu of taxes is up. In a bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the west is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for western miners has new life. The giveaway of public lands will start again because this bill, unlike the fiscal year 1995 appropriation law, does nothing to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Under the bill western States and localities can build roads through existing parks, refuges, forest, and public lands unabated. There is too much pain in this fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. The pain began with the 602b allocation for this bill. This bill is subject to a larger percentage reduction than any other appropriation bill. At $11.9 billion in new budget authority, this bill is $1.6 billion below 1995 and $1.9 billion below the President's request. What form does the pain take? Agencies are being eliminated; programs are being terminated immediately; programs are being phased out; and hard working people are going to lose their jobs, with at least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior subject to a reduction in force. indian programs Let me speak first to the programs that serve and honor the Indian people. I am grateful that the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are maintained at the 1995 level. But I know even at the fiscal year 1995 levels, these programs will not come close to meeting the needs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are $31 million below the President's request at a time when student enrollment is escalating rapidly; the Indian Health Service is $96 million below the President's request. With medical inflation and a growing Indian population, this means that health care will be reduced in a very real way. Among the most prominent terminations in this bill is the Indian Education Program administered by the Department of Education. It would be easier to accept this $81 million cut if at least some of this money had been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs. But that was not done. This is a program that has enhanced the education of nonreservation Indians across the country. But this is not the end of the insult to the Indian people. This mark limits the ability of the Indian people to defend themselves in water rights cases. Even at the $15 million 1995 level, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is unable to meet requests from 30 tribes who need technical and legal assistance in defending their water rights. With a $5 million reduction, the 1995 level will be reduced by one-third and even more tribes will remain unsupported. I view this an abrogation of our trust responsibility to Indian nations. This marks takes away the ability of the Indian people to help themselves through loan guarantees. If this mark is approved, the U.S. Government will be breaking yet another promise to the American Indian people. This mark will delay, if not totally stop, the much needed Smithsonian facility at Suitland that would store and conserve the Heye collection of Indian artifacts which will be the central feature of the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum. Self-governance for Indian tribes, with these budget reductions, will be delayed and the momentum generated in recent years for self- governance lost. I believe self-governance is working and should be encouraged instead of stifled through budget cuts. Heaped upon all of this is the complete elimination of community economic development grants, community development technical assistance, and the Indian arts and crafts board. And this bill sets in motion termination of Federal support for the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. In total, what is before us today for Indian people is $450 million below what the President requested, an 11-percent reduction for one of the neediest groups in America. [[Page H 6936]] Energy programs Moving on to the Department of Energy, I think we all can take great pride in the successes resulting from our investments in energy efficiency technologies. New lighting technology, new windows and efforts to produce more efficient automobiles are all paying off. Now, many of these efforts will be reduced, and eventually eliminated. One of the most disappointing things in this bill is that it slashes the low income weatherization program in half, a $107 million reduction. This is done at the same time the committee ignores the President's request to delay $155 million in clean coal technology subsidies for industry. Do we really want to continue corporate welfare at the expense of elderly poor people? If this cut is not reversed, efforts to reduce overall energy usage and reduce energy costs for elderly people will be extremely limited. cultural programs Of course, the proposed decreases in the appropriations for cultural programs is an urgent concern. The cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities which exceed 40 percent and the cut for the Institute of Museum Services, which exceeds 25 percent, are out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill and for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services the reduction is out of proportion to the recommendations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. I wonder if people understand fully the impact these cuts will have on our culture. Performances will be canceled, museums will close their doors earlier, and art education opportunities in our schools will be cut back sharply. Every segment of American society will suffer from these draconian cuts. science programs Not only is this bill unfriendly to cultural programs, it buries biological science. It buries it in the U.S. Geological Survey after cutting biological research by almost one-third and shackles researchers to Federal land. But the creatures of this great land of ours are not restricted to Federal lands. Lets think about what we are doing. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility for migratory birds as well as international treaties protecting these birds. These migratory birds do not know the boundaries of Federal land. Provisions in this bill though keep the Secretary from doing any science, any research on anything but Federal lands. If there are threats to our waterfowl on non-Federal lands, the Secretary could not study it even if private landowners ask to have their properties studied. Why at a time when duck numbers are finally increasing as a result of combined Federal, State, and private efforts, would we want to place obstacles to the progress now underway? Is that what we want? I think not. But this bill would do that. Volunteers are even banned by this bill, if they offer their talents to help resource science and research. Let me give one example of what this will mean to one program, the breeding bird survey. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, started in 1966, is the only continental survey program specifically designed to obtain population trend data on all species of birds. At least 4,000 volunteers contribute to this survey. Without their data, it would be extremely difficult to detect declines or increases in our country's bird populations. No one has ever questioned the authenticity of this information and it come to us at no cost. I do not know what public policy purpose is served by banning the use of volunteers. short on dollars, long on legislation This is bill, as I have documented, short on dollars; yet, it is long on legislative provisions. The bill requires committee approval for new wildlife refuges. The bill amends fee language for refuges. The bill mandates peer review for resources research in the Geological Survey. The bill permits giving away Bureau of Mines facilities. The bill amends the American Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990. The bill authorizes and executes the sell of strategic petroleum reserve oil. The bill terminates the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and transfers its responsibilities to other agencies. The bill establishes a new fee program for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Forest Service; and The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment restrictions and directions. Beyond that, the Endangered Species Act is circumvented by not providing money for listing species so they can receive the full protection of the Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is being circumvented by taking away the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to respond to a permit application for a golf course which would disturb valuable wetlands in Lake Jackson, TX. The California Desert Protection Act is circumvented by taking away all but $1 for the National Park Service to operate the Mojave National Preserve and returning the management to the Bureau of Land Management. With this bill, the first of the national parks will be closed. How many more will follow? moratoria And we find that moratoria are OK in some instances but not okay in others. Moratoria are not OK to stop the give away of patents under the 1872 mining law. But a moratoria is acceptable to stop promulgation of an RS 2477 rulemaking, a rulemaking that would prevent the potential despoliation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. This bill does include a continuation of the moratoria on Outer Continental Shelf leasing including Bristol Bay in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington on the west coast as well as certain Florida areas and east coast areas. land and water conservation fund While I am relieved there is some money for land acquisition, unlike the scorched earth policy of the House budget resolution, the lack of money can only lead to future problems. For many willing sellers, the Government is the only possible buyer. Ongoing acquisitions which have been phased over several years can not be completed. We will have broken commitments with those individuals and concerns that entered into agreements. Of the $51.5 million in the bill related to the land and water conservation fund, only $23 million is for actual acquisition of land. The balance is to administer the program. The Secretary of the Interior asked for money to help local areas with habitat conservation plans by giving land acquisition grants to State and local governments, a request that was denied. Turning a blind eye to this problem serves only to undermine efforts to improve the Endangered Species Act. The North American wetlands conservation fund is cut in half with the understanding that it will be terminated next year, another blow to successful efforts to strengthen the number of migratory waterfowl. conclusion Given the disproportionately large reduction this subcommittee received from the full Appropriations Committee, large cuts are inevitable and regrettable. One of the great strengths and appeals of this bill is the wide variety of programs it covers. The all-America bill as I used to call it. The remarkable natural resources of this country, our magnificent cultural resources, the programs that help people, the energy research programs--unfortunately, all will be diminished by the provisions in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very good member of our committee and a Member who has done great service on handling the Forest Service issues and who brings to it a lot of knowledge. (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our Parks and Forest Services are met. The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made. It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has been done in this bill. We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it is moving in the right direction. [[Page H 6937]] We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national forests around. This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 4.3 billion board feet. We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale revenues and income taxes. Although the road construction account has been cut, we have increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for a long time, and I would like to set the record straight. First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed protection through better road design, improves safety for road system users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to other emergencies. The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed. Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for salvage sales and forest restoration projects. This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive harvest methods than those used here. For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a responsibility to protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that. We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill. The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less destructive forest fires. Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward. I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard to personnel stationed in the field. It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner that reduces bureaucratic requirements. Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at the outset that I think all of us serving on this committee have a deep and abiding love for the responsibilities that come with the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our subcommittee chairman. There is no more decent or thoughtful Member of this body. He has been given an incredibly difficult task to manage the responsibilities that we have within the budget constraints. And while I know he would have liked to have done more and better, he has done well with what was made available to us. It is also an extraordinary privilege to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking member on this subcommittee. There are a number of good things in this bill. But there are also too many instances where I think it falls very seriously short of what should be done for the proper protection and proper management of our public lands and resources, for the education of native Americans children, and for continuing sound policies about the development and use of energy. It provides no money for endangered species prelisting work, for instance; that is, for efforts to avoid the necessity of adding species to the list protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is a prescription for increasing, not diminishing, the conflicts about implementing that law, and is extremely unwise and shortsighted. So are funding restrictions for basic biological research, restrictions on the use of volunteers and access voluntarily to private property. The bill does not include the moratorium that should be there for patenting mining claims until we have a revision of the mining law of 1872. In area after area, this bill puts commercial interests ahead of science, education, proper management and protection of our natural resources, our historical and cultural resources, our human resources. There will be amendments offered to correct some of these defects. I will support those. But I am afraid that unless the bill is radically revised, and the chances of that are not great, it will be difficult to say that it deserves to be enacted. This bill, more than any other that comes before this body, is about the profound trust and stewardship responsibilities that this Congress has for our [[Page H 6938]] national treasures, for our natural treasures. I am afraid our descendants will look back on these actions and ask how in the world we could so shortchange our trust and our stewardship responsibilities. Tragedy occurs, Mr. Chairman, when we know better but we do not do better, and I fear today we are writing a tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who brings a wealth of knowledge as a rancher to some of the tough problems that confront us, as well as a leader in the Western matters and with the cattle association, and other things. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to give my sense of appreciation for the kind of work that goes on in a committee with as diverse a responsibility as is inculcated into the authorization in the realm of what is known as the Committee on Resources. I want to say that Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates are some of the finest people I ever worked with and had the opportunity to work with and to deal with in this Congress of the United States, along with the other members of the committee itself. This is my second go-around on that committee, an enormous responsibility. I want to say, too, to the staffs that back us up, that there are no better people on this Earth who are more learned or a more professional group in the world than the staffs that support the committee work that we do day in and day out. Without them, it would not be possible to put this together, particularly at a time like this when we are cutting back, reducing the size of Government, but yet maintaining that sense of responsibility that is paramount to this entire function. That word ``function'' means an awful lot. Because if you do not understand what the function of some of these programs are, then you are hard put to come up with some solutions to some of the things we are trying to do. These folks have done an outstanding job. I wanted to compliment them all and say it is great serving with you. I hope that those of you who are out there furiously writing new amendments to this bill would stop and listen just once and say do I really understand what the function of this particular element of this bill is, how does it work. If you do not, then skinny yourself over here and talk to some of these people that I just referred to on the staffs, and it will save us an awful lot of talking time, because right now we need to reduce the time and expenditure on some of these bills. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our coastal resources. For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas. {time} 1230 While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas that depend on a healthy coastal environment. In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or preleasing activities. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with the Endangered Species Act. I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the needs of the Nation as a whole. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any further cuts in those programs. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost sensitivity. Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget. Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly. As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, $1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995. An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. [[Page H 6939]] The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects. On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years. H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated to be terminated. On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is welcomed by several county administrators. In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can produce a bill that we will all be proud of. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure that is before us. Frankly, it warrants opposition because of the priorities, because the hand that was dealt to the appropriators under the allocation system is inadequate to meet the responsibilities that we are sworn to discharge. The money is not there. Obviously, you can shift money around and do a little for operation and maintenance in the parks, but then you are denied to buy the in-holdings of lands and the land/water conservation or in other areas. The money is not there, and this bill ought to be rejected because it does not permit us to exercise our responsibilities in a way that is effective. We are going to see we have a $7 billion backlog in parks or a $9 billion backlog in terms of responsibilities. That is going to grow under this measure. Under anyone's evaluation, we do not put a dent in the backlog. In fact, we add to it. The other reason that this bill has to be rejected, and there are many such examples in the bill, where it is inadequate, the elimination of essential programs like the weatherization program, the energy programs, these are working programs. They work. They are not just for a time of crisis. They are the way we avoid crisis. The other reason is that this measure is not just an appropriations bill, this is a whole policy bill. In Congress, we separate policy and authorization from the actual appropriation. The allocation of dollars actually funding programs is essential. That is an essential decision which is supposed to be kept separate. We have always had a little overlap. But in this bill we simply circumvent the policy process completely in many significant areas. We are rewriting the Endangered Species Act. We are rewriting law after law in this legislation, rewriting those laws, in fact, in a way in which we are not able to have essential debate. My colleagues wonder why we are spending more time on the appropriations bill on the floor. I can tell you, because when you consolidate the appropriation process, one that is highly controversial because of the nature of the cuts that are coming down this year and the strong disagreement in terms of those priorities, and with an entire wholesale rewrite of many laws that affect the management of our forests, management of our park system, fee issues, issue after issue, the Endangered Species Act, the issue with regard to mining law and whether or not we are going to have a moratorium, when you combine all of this into a single legislative bill, you have bought into a significant responsibility. I have spent some 19 years in this body working on parks and public lands issues, as an example. I think I know a little bit about it. I do not know everything. As my colleague, Congressman Udall, used to say, there are two types of Members of Congress: ``those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know.'' Obviously, we are always guided by the fact that we are trying to learn in this process, as I am sure my colleagues would agree. But the fact that you consolidate into this measure dozens of policy changes that you do and the other aspects are obviously going to result in a significant policy path changes. This should not be done. Maybe the chairmen of the various authorizing committees approved of this, but that does not make a majority. That does not provide us with the in-depth debate and hearings and other aspects that are supposed to take place in terms of public participation to at least a limited degree. So this bill fails in terms of process. It fails in terms of priorities, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, I think it is appropriate to review the mission and purpose of the Department of Interior as outlined in the U.S. Government Manual (1993/94): As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. Similar analysis and reflection would apply to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the sister agency which shares substantial responsibilities for conservation and preservation of our natural and cultural legacy also is addressed in this measure. I cannot support H.R. 1977 because it doesn't provide the Interior Department or the Forest Service with the resources they need to carry out their stated mission. This is an unfortunate move away from a core conservation and preservation ethic that is basic to the definition and culture of the American people. The policies and programs in place to carry out the mission of the Interior Department are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone, rather they were uniquely derived from years of deliberation, of listening and responding to the core conservation and preservation values and ethics of the American people. Significant programs--the Land Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] and Historic Preservation Fund [HPF] are cut to the point of not being able to fill the backlog or immediate need. Of the one billion of funds generated, only 6-7 percent allocated for its intended purposes. In their zeal to shun Federal conservation efforts the majority isn't even making sensible choices in funding priorities. For example, zero funding listing and prelisting programs for endangered species and eliminating the National Biological Service demonstrate the height of hypocrisy on the part of the majority. Problems in managing our Federal resources will not go away just because we decide to quit addressing them, and not addressing them is certain to cost the American people more in the long run. I too want to decrease the Federal deficit. But the most sensible way to do that is through improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Interior Department programs or other funding of agencies with this measure. Many of the programs seriously underfunded or targeted for elimination in this bill are working. Improving programs that work goes a lot [[Page H 6940]] farther in reducing the Federal deficit than cutting funding and hoping the problem goes away. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all prelisting activities until the ESA is reauthorized. The $4.5 million cut from the FWS budget for prelisting activities is vital to the continuation of a highly successful program designed to prevent the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. There are over 4,000 species now under consideration for possible listing. Many of these species could be conserved through simple and inexpensive programs at the Federal, State, and local land management levels. The Fish and Wildlife Service candidate conservation program serves as an impetus to establishing conservation and stabilization activities before the species reaches critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to criticize the FWS for listing species without giving that agency the opportunity to conserve species before they reach critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to cry for reduced spending and greater economic efficiency while gutting a program that decreases the need for future costly emergency recovery actions. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all listing activities for endangered and threatened species, thereby extending the current moratorium. The majority is evading the legislative process by using agency appropriations to legislate national policy. By denying FWS any ability to conserve species proactively, Congress is ensuring further decline and the need for drastic and expensive actions to save species. In addition, there are no exceptions in this budget cut for emergency listings or for listing plant species which are potential sources of medicine. Plants, animals and people cannot cling to life waiting for the legislative process to run its course. The submersion of the National Biological Service into the National Geological Survey is another glaring illustration of fear run amok. There is legitimate room for debate over the merits of what the NBS or any other government agency does or how much funding should be provided for that work. However, the allegations leveled at the NBS, largely unfounded, are being used to justify elimination of the NBS. It is hypocritical for this Congress to call for better science and then deny funding for efforts specifically set up to conduct unbiased science. H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, severely crippling the efforts of the Federal Government to achieve consensus on policy actions and short changing the key efforts which backstop local nonprofit and private preservation efforts. Historic preservation provides a twofold benefit--preserving historic properties while helping communities achieve the economic advantages that occur as a result of historic preservation. It seems Members who take deficit reduction seriously would see the significant benefit that flow from a program that efficiently achieves a national goal while generating revenue to participating communities. Beyond these specifics the moratoria to prevent the public land giveaways under the 1872 mining laws are not included. Elimination of the essential weatherization program, appliance development commercialization program and other energy efficiency programs. Most energy conservation programs have been severely cut. Unfortunately this measure bans AmeriCorps funding initiated under the National Service law in spite of the fact that it was self funded by the 1993 law. The majority claims that their bill strikes a balance between the dual goals of reducing the deficit and protecting and enhancing the Nation's rich natural and cultural resources. This bill does no such thing and in the process, poorly serves the needs of the American people. It's certainly not a good measure we can and should do better. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a newcomer in terms of service but an oldcomer in terms of knowledge to the subcommittee. The gentleman brings a great perspective on Western issues, particularly as they affect the State of Washington, and the areas surrounding, on forests and some of the river problems. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks. I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this legislation in the fairest way possible. I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government. This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go through this very important bill. I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his forbearance in working with us on that amendment. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years. This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise. I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that I think both the gentleman and I would like it to. The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is a virtue. The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense. It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these natural resources, particularly our national parks. But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department of Energy'

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 13, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H6929-H6966] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1977. {time} 1203 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first of all I want to thank those of my colleagues that supported the rule because I think we have a good bill here given the fact that we are under the constraints of the Budget Act which reduces our amount of money over 10 percent, and also I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle that we had a very bipartisan subcommittee. We worked well together. We tried to be as totally nonpartisan as we had to make these difficult choices, and we did as much as possible to address the challenges of the Interior and related agencies' responsibility with the funds that were available, and I think on balance we did a good job of achieving that. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the whole team worked well; the staff and the associate staff worked as a team. We worked very closely with the authorizers. I say to my colleagues, ``There isn't anything in this bill that's not approved by at least the chairman and the members of the authorizing committee so that what we have here is a team effort.'' Mr. Chairman, obviously we are going to have differences, and that will be reflected in the amendments, some substantial policy issue differences. I will say at the outset, ``We'll do everything we can to expedite this so Members can get home but not in any way stifle debate in the process.'' I am going to be very brief in my opening comments here. I think it boiled down to three areas, as I would see it, given the constraints of the budget reductions. First of all, we had the must-dos. The must-dos were keeping the parks open, keeping the Smithsonian open, keeping the visitor facilities at Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management open to the American people. Two hundred sixty million Americans enjoy the public lands, and they enjoy them in many ways. They enjoy them in terms of looking into the Grand Canyon and seeing a magnificent thing created by our Creator. They likewise enjoy going out and fishing in a stream or hunting in a national forest. They enjoy going to a Fish and Wildlife facility to see how we propagate the species of fish and how we nurture the fishing industry. They enjoy going to the Bureau of Land Management facilities, the millions of acres. So, Mr. Chairman, we made every effort to do those things that the public enjoys, and we held the operating funds at roughly a flat level given our constraints, meaning that we would in no way restrict public access to these great facilities that people care a lot about, and about a third of the United States is public land owned by all of the people of this Nation, and we make every effort to insure that their experience with that will be very enjoyable, and that led to the second category of things, and that is the need-to-dos. As I see it, the need-to-dos were to insure that sanitary facilities at our national parks, and forests and other facilities were good. The need-to-dos included fixing a road if it is in bad shape. It included finishing buildings that were under way. I say to my colleagues, ``You can't stop a construction job in midstream, and those things had to be taken care of, and we have done so.'' The third group was the nice-to-dos, things that are nice if we had the money. There are a lot of activities that we could no longer afford to do. Many of the grant programs had to be terminated, some of the research programs in energy. We had to downscale land acquisition 78 percent. We put in, of course, some money for emergencies, but essentially we will not be doing additional land acquisition because I tell my colleagues, ``When you buy lands, you have to take care of it, and that gives you enormous downstream costs.'' We did some construction where it was necessary to finish buildings, but we do limit new construction. We limit new programs so that we had some tough cuts that we had to make in the things that are nice to do. Mr. Chairman, we just had a lot of discussion on the NEA, and of course the NEH is similar to that. We have had change. We eliminated the National Biological Survey, and rather than that we have a natural resource science arm in the U.S. Geological Survey. But we are not getting into that now because that will come up to the debate. I think we have addressed energy security. We want to be sure that the United States will be secure in the future, that we will have energy independence, that we will not have to depend totally on foreign sources, and so we have addressed that in our bill to the best of our ability. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is our responsibility, and in the bill we said at the outset we are going to take care of education, the basic education, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the basic health. That is the responsibility [[Page H 6930]] of the Federal Government, and as much as possible we have level funded that along, as I mentioned earlier, with what we were able to do in keeping parks and so on open. There are lot of other things I could say about this legislation. I simply want to say again I think it represents common sense, I think it represents a responsible use of the funds available. I endorse the fact that we are downsizing the budget, that we are going to get on a glide path to a balanced budget in 7 years. We do not fund programs that have large outyear costs simply because we would not be able to address those in the future. I just want to close, because I think it reflects the overall philosophy in this budget, with a statement by Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, to the Committee on the Budget, and he said, and I quote: I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that most Americans believe that their children will live at a standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that probably would be eliminated and that they would look forward to their children doing better than they. That is a significant statement because it says very clearly from one of the economic leaders of this Nation that, if we can balance the budget, we will leave a legacy for our children of a better standard of living than we have, and that to me is what this is all about. That is what we are trying to do here, and not only do we want to try and leave a legacy of a better standard of living by using our resources more wisely, but we are also leaving a legacy, in my judgment, in the way we have handled the responsibilities of public lands that will be even better for their enjoyment, and that is the challenge we face as we deal with the amendments here today. We will try to keep that in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.'' In this bill I think we are responsibly exercising that important role. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask that a table detailing the various accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record. [[Page H 6931]] TH13JY95.000 [[Page H 6932]] TH13JY95.001 [[Page H 6933]] TH13JY95.002 [[Page H 6934]] TH13JY95.003 [[Page H 6935]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, and he is my good friend, and I have differed on an Interior appropriations bill I think for the first time in how long have you been on the committee, Ralph? Twenty years? Twenty years we have been in agreement on the bills, and the reason for that, I think more than any other, is the fact that the bill did not suffer from malnutrition. The heavy hand of the full chairman of the committee was felt immediately by the Interior Subcommittee. Our 692(b) allocation was cut by more than a billion dollars on the first go-around. On the second go-around on the 602(b), we were cutting another $17 million dollars. So, there is a lot of PR work for the chairman and for me to do with the chairman of the full committee if we want to be treated as we should be treated. This is America's bill. This is the bill that fosters our natural resources. This is the bill that is working on providing energy savings. This is the bill that provides for cultural enrichment throughout the United States. {time} 1215 Yet, as a result of the 602(b) allocation, we just do not have the funds with which to carry on the kind of activities that we ought to. Our natural resources are going to suffer. My good friend, the chairman, indicated that we are keeping the parks open. That is not enough, The Grand Canyon, as the gentleman said, will still be there and people will still be able to see the Grand Canyon, but they ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon in comfortable facilities. They ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon driving on roads that do not have ruts and ditches. They ought to be sure that their safety is protected as they go through the national parks. I do not know that the funds we have provided here will allow that. Construction for the parks, construction for Fish and Wildlife, construction funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, have all been cut back. I do not know that I can use the phrase ``worst of all,'' but the Indian people are going to take a very big hit in this bill. The protection of our environment will be severely diminished as a result of what we do in this bill. Of course, we have been arguing about the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services for 2 days now. The Endowments have been cut by at least 40 percent. That is a huge cut. Our cultural resources are going to suffer. The program to help the needy people with their problems of weatherization, during the cold of winter, and the heat of summer is being cut. We have a program in our bill that enables the needy to obtain a small amount of funding to improve their physical properties so that the rigors of the winters in cities like Chicago or in States like Minnesota or New England will not be felt as keenly as they are going to be felt now, because there will not be funds with which they could help themselves. I talked about welfare for the needy, and in this bill, welfare for the needy will be cut. But Western welfare, welfare for the Western States; for example, the program to provide payments in lieu of taxes, PILT, is increased. In a total bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the West, is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for Western miners has taken new life. In our bill last year, we approved a moratorium on providing the sale of national lands to miners for $2.95 an acre, lands that have subsequently been sold on many occasions for huge sums of money to big mining companies. This giveaway of public lands will now start again. The patent moratorium is not in this bill. Nothing is done to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Western States and localities will also be able to build roads through existing parks, refuges, forests, and public lands unabated. There is much pain in this fiscal year 1996 bill, and it takes various forms. Agencies are being eliminated, programs are being terminated, programs are being phased out. Hard working people are going to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman. At least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior will be laid off. This bill does have some good features. I congratulate the chairman for that. I do hope that the other body, when it considers this bill, will take the steps that are necessary to maintain the vital functions that are carried out in this bill. But other programs have not been cut. Welfare for the needy may be cut but western welfare in the form of payments in lieu of taxes is up. In a bill that is cut more than 13 percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program heavily weighted to the west is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for western miners has new life. The giveaway of public lands will start again because this bill, unlike the fiscal year 1995 appropriation law, does nothing to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Under the bill western States and localities can build roads through existing parks, refuges, forest, and public lands unabated. There is too much pain in this fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. The pain began with the 602b allocation for this bill. This bill is subject to a larger percentage reduction than any other appropriation bill. At $11.9 billion in new budget authority, this bill is $1.6 billion below 1995 and $1.9 billion below the President's request. What form does the pain take? Agencies are being eliminated; programs are being terminated immediately; programs are being phased out; and hard working people are going to lose their jobs, with at least 3,000 people in the Department of the Interior subject to a reduction in force. indian programs Let me speak first to the programs that serve and honor the Indian people. I am grateful that the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are maintained at the 1995 level. But I know even at the fiscal year 1995 levels, these programs will not come close to meeting the needs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs are $31 million below the President's request at a time when student enrollment is escalating rapidly; the Indian Health Service is $96 million below the President's request. With medical inflation and a growing Indian population, this means that health care will be reduced in a very real way. Among the most prominent terminations in this bill is the Indian Education Program administered by the Department of Education. It would be easier to accept this $81 million cut if at least some of this money had been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs. But that was not done. This is a program that has enhanced the education of nonreservation Indians across the country. But this is not the end of the insult to the Indian people. This mark limits the ability of the Indian people to defend themselves in water rights cases. Even at the $15 million 1995 level, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is unable to meet requests from 30 tribes who need technical and legal assistance in defending their water rights. With a $5 million reduction, the 1995 level will be reduced by one-third and even more tribes will remain unsupported. I view this an abrogation of our trust responsibility to Indian nations. This marks takes away the ability of the Indian people to help themselves through loan guarantees. If this mark is approved, the U.S. Government will be breaking yet another promise to the American Indian people. This mark will delay, if not totally stop, the much needed Smithsonian facility at Suitland that would store and conserve the Heye collection of Indian artifacts which will be the central feature of the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum. Self-governance for Indian tribes, with these budget reductions, will be delayed and the momentum generated in recent years for self- governance lost. I believe self-governance is working and should be encouraged instead of stifled through budget cuts. Heaped upon all of this is the complete elimination of community economic development grants, community development technical assistance, and the Indian arts and crafts board. And this bill sets in motion termination of Federal support for the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. In total, what is before us today for Indian people is $450 million below what the President requested, an 11-percent reduction for one of the neediest groups in America. [[Page H 6936]] Energy programs Moving on to the Department of Energy, I think we all can take great pride in the successes resulting from our investments in energy efficiency technologies. New lighting technology, new windows and efforts to produce more efficient automobiles are all paying off. Now, many of these efforts will be reduced, and eventually eliminated. One of the most disappointing things in this bill is that it slashes the low income weatherization program in half, a $107 million reduction. This is done at the same time the committee ignores the President's request to delay $155 million in clean coal technology subsidies for industry. Do we really want to continue corporate welfare at the expense of elderly poor people? If this cut is not reversed, efforts to reduce overall energy usage and reduce energy costs for elderly people will be extremely limited. cultural programs Of course, the proposed decreases in the appropriations for cultural programs is an urgent concern. The cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities which exceed 40 percent and the cut for the Institute of Museum Services, which exceeds 25 percent, are out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill and for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services the reduction is out of proportion to the recommendations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. I wonder if people understand fully the impact these cuts will have on our culture. Performances will be canceled, museums will close their doors earlier, and art education opportunities in our schools will be cut back sharply. Every segment of American society will suffer from these draconian cuts. science programs Not only is this bill unfriendly to cultural programs, it buries biological science. It buries it in the U.S. Geological Survey after cutting biological research by almost one-third and shackles researchers to Federal land. But the creatures of this great land of ours are not restricted to Federal lands. Lets think about what we are doing. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility for migratory birds as well as international treaties protecting these birds. These migratory birds do not know the boundaries of Federal land. Provisions in this bill though keep the Secretary from doing any science, any research on anything but Federal lands. If there are threats to our waterfowl on non-Federal lands, the Secretary could not study it even if private landowners ask to have their properties studied. Why at a time when duck numbers are finally increasing as a result of combined Federal, State, and private efforts, would we want to place obstacles to the progress now underway? Is that what we want? I think not. But this bill would do that. Volunteers are even banned by this bill, if they offer their talents to help resource science and research. Let me give one example of what this will mean to one program, the breeding bird survey. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, started in 1966, is the only continental survey program specifically designed to obtain population trend data on all species of birds. At least 4,000 volunteers contribute to this survey. Without their data, it would be extremely difficult to detect declines or increases in our country's bird populations. No one has ever questioned the authenticity of this information and it come to us at no cost. I do not know what public policy purpose is served by banning the use of volunteers. short on dollars, long on legislation This is bill, as I have documented, short on dollars; yet, it is long on legislative provisions. The bill requires committee approval for new wildlife refuges. The bill amends fee language for refuges. The bill mandates peer review for resources research in the Geological Survey. The bill permits giving away Bureau of Mines facilities. The bill amends the American Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990. The bill authorizes and executes the sell of strategic petroleum reserve oil. The bill terminates the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and transfers its responsibilities to other agencies. The bill establishes a new fee program for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Forest Service; and The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment restrictions and directions. Beyond that, the Endangered Species Act is circumvented by not providing money for listing species so they can receive the full protection of the Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is being circumvented by taking away the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to respond to a permit application for a golf course which would disturb valuable wetlands in Lake Jackson, TX. The California Desert Protection Act is circumvented by taking away all but $1 for the National Park Service to operate the Mojave National Preserve and returning the management to the Bureau of Land Management. With this bill, the first of the national parks will be closed. How many more will follow? moratoria And we find that moratoria are OK in some instances but not okay in others. Moratoria are not OK to stop the give away of patents under the 1872 mining law. But a moratoria is acceptable to stop promulgation of an RS 2477 rulemaking, a rulemaking that would prevent the potential despoliation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. This bill does include a continuation of the moratoria on Outer Continental Shelf leasing including Bristol Bay in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington on the west coast as well as certain Florida areas and east coast areas. land and water conservation fund While I am relieved there is some money for land acquisition, unlike the scorched earth policy of the House budget resolution, the lack of money can only lead to future problems. For many willing sellers, the Government is the only possible buyer. Ongoing acquisitions which have been phased over several years can not be completed. We will have broken commitments with those individuals and concerns that entered into agreements. Of the $51.5 million in the bill related to the land and water conservation fund, only $23 million is for actual acquisition of land. The balance is to administer the program. The Secretary of the Interior asked for money to help local areas with habitat conservation plans by giving land acquisition grants to State and local governments, a request that was denied. Turning a blind eye to this problem serves only to undermine efforts to improve the Endangered Species Act. The North American wetlands conservation fund is cut in half with the understanding that it will be terminated next year, another blow to successful efforts to strengthen the number of migratory waterfowl. conclusion Given the disproportionately large reduction this subcommittee received from the full Appropriations Committee, large cuts are inevitable and regrettable. One of the great strengths and appeals of this bill is the wide variety of programs it covers. The all-America bill as I used to call it. The remarkable natural resources of this country, our magnificent cultural resources, the programs that help people, the energy research programs--unfortunately, all will be diminished by the provisions in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very good member of our committee and a Member who has done great service on handling the Forest Service issues and who brings to it a lot of knowledge. (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our Parks and Forest Services are met. The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made. It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has been done in this bill. We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it is moving in the right direction. [[Page H 6937]] We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national forests around. This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 4.3 billion board feet. We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale revenues and income taxes. Although the road construction account has been cut, we have increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for a long time, and I would like to set the record straight. First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed protection through better road design, improves safety for road system users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to other emergencies. The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed. Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for salvage sales and forest restoration projects. This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive harvest methods than those used here. For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a responsibility to protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that. We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill. The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less destructive forest fires. Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward. I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard to personnel stationed in the field. It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner that reduces bureaucratic requirements. Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at the outset that I think all of us serving on this committee have a deep and abiding love for the responsibilities that come with the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our subcommittee chairman. There is no more decent or thoughtful Member of this body. He has been given an incredibly difficult task to manage the responsibilities that we have within the budget constraints. And while I know he would have liked to have done more and better, he has done well with what was made available to us. It is also an extraordinary privilege to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking member on this subcommittee. There are a number of good things in this bill. But there are also too many instances where I think it falls very seriously short of what should be done for the proper protection and proper management of our public lands and resources, for the education of native Americans children, and for continuing sound policies about the development and use of energy. It provides no money for endangered species prelisting work, for instance; that is, for efforts to avoid the necessity of adding species to the list protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is a prescription for increasing, not diminishing, the conflicts about implementing that law, and is extremely unwise and shortsighted. So are funding restrictions for basic biological research, restrictions on the use of volunteers and access voluntarily to private property. The bill does not include the moratorium that should be there for patenting mining claims until we have a revision of the mining law of 1872. In area after area, this bill puts commercial interests ahead of science, education, proper management and protection of our natural resources, our historical and cultural resources, our human resources. There will be amendments offered to correct some of these defects. I will support those. But I am afraid that unless the bill is radically revised, and the chances of that are not great, it will be difficult to say that it deserves to be enacted. This bill, more than any other that comes before this body, is about the profound trust and stewardship responsibilities that this Congress has for our [[Page H 6938]] national treasures, for our natural treasures. I am afraid our descendants will look back on these actions and ask how in the world we could so shortchange our trust and our stewardship responsibilities. Tragedy occurs, Mr. Chairman, when we know better but we do not do better, and I fear today we are writing a tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who brings a wealth of knowledge as a rancher to some of the tough problems that confront us, as well as a leader in the Western matters and with the cattle association, and other things. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to give my sense of appreciation for the kind of work that goes on in a committee with as diverse a responsibility as is inculcated into the authorization in the realm of what is known as the Committee on Resources. I want to say that Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates are some of the finest people I ever worked with and had the opportunity to work with and to deal with in this Congress of the United States, along with the other members of the committee itself. This is my second go-around on that committee, an enormous responsibility. I want to say, too, to the staffs that back us up, that there are no better people on this Earth who are more learned or a more professional group in the world than the staffs that support the committee work that we do day in and day out. Without them, it would not be possible to put this together, particularly at a time like this when we are cutting back, reducing the size of Government, but yet maintaining that sense of responsibility that is paramount to this entire function. That word ``function'' means an awful lot. Because if you do not understand what the function of some of these programs are, then you are hard put to come up with some solutions to some of the things we are trying to do. These folks have done an outstanding job. I wanted to compliment them all and say it is great serving with you. I hope that those of you who are out there furiously writing new amendments to this bill would stop and listen just once and say do I really understand what the function of this particular element of this bill is, how does it work. If you do not, then skinny yourself over here and talk to some of these people that I just referred to on the staffs, and it will save us an awful lot of talking time, because right now we need to reduce the time and expenditure on some of these bills. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our coastal resources. For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas. {time} 1230 While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas that depend on a healthy coastal environment. In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or preleasing activities. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with the Endangered Species Act. I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the needs of the Nation as a whole. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any further cuts in those programs. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost sensitivity. Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget. Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly. As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, $1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995. An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. [[Page H 6939]] The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects. On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years. H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated to be terminated. On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is welcomed by several county administrators. In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can produce a bill that we will all be proud of. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure that is before us. Frankly, it warrants opposition because of the priorities, because the hand that was dealt to the appropriators under the allocation system is inadequate to meet the responsibilities that we are sworn to discharge. The money is not there. Obviously, you can shift money around and do a little for operation and maintenance in the parks, but then you are denied to buy the in-holdings of lands and the land/water conservation or in other areas. The money is not there, and this bill ought to be rejected because it does not permit us to exercise our responsibilities in a way that is effective. We are going to see we have a $7 billion backlog in parks or a $9 billion backlog in terms of responsibilities. That is going to grow under this measure. Under anyone's evaluation, we do not put a dent in the backlog. In fact, we add to it. The other reason that this bill has to be rejected, and there are many such examples in the bill, where it is inadequate, the elimination of essential programs like the weatherization program, the energy programs, these are working programs. They work. They are not just for a time of crisis. They are the way we avoid crisis. The other reason is that this measure is not just an appropriations bill, this is a whole policy bill. In Congress, we separate policy and authorization from the actual appropriation. The allocation of dollars actually funding programs is essential. That is an essential decision which is supposed to be kept separate. We have always had a little overlap. But in this bill we simply circumvent the policy process completely in many significant areas. We are rewriting the Endangered Species Act. We are rewriting law after law in this legislation, rewriting those laws, in fact, in a way in which we are not able to have essential debate. My colleagues wonder why we are spending more time on the appropriations bill on the floor. I can tell you, because when you consolidate the appropriation process, one that is highly controversial because of the nature of the cuts that are coming down this year and the strong disagreement in terms of those priorities, and with an entire wholesale rewrite of many laws that affect the management of our forests, management of our park system, fee issues, issue after issue, the Endangered Species Act, the issue with regard to mining law and whether or not we are going to have a moratorium, when you combine all of this into a single legislative bill, you have bought into a significant responsibility. I have spent some 19 years in this body working on parks and public lands issues, as an example. I think I know a little bit about it. I do not know everything. As my colleague, Congressman Udall, used to say, there are two types of Members of Congress: ``those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know.'' Obviously, we are always guided by the fact that we are trying to learn in this process, as I am sure my colleagues would agree. But the fact that you consolidate into this measure dozens of policy changes that you do and the other aspects are obviously going to result in a significant policy path changes. This should not be done. Maybe the chairmen of the various authorizing committees approved of this, but that does not make a majority. That does not provide us with the in-depth debate and hearings and other aspects that are supposed to take place in terms of public participation to at least a limited degree. So this bill fails in terms of process. It fails in terms of priorities, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, I think it is appropriate to review the mission and purpose of the Department of Interior as outlined in the U.S. Government Manual (1993/94): As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. Similar analysis and reflection would apply to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the sister agency which shares substantial responsibilities for conservation and preservation of our natural and cultural legacy also is addressed in this measure. I cannot support H.R. 1977 because it doesn't provide the Interior Department or the Forest Service with the resources they need to carry out their stated mission. This is an unfortunate move away from a core conservation and preservation ethic that is basic to the definition and culture of the American people. The policies and programs in place to carry out the mission of the Interior Department are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone, rather they were uniquely derived from years of deliberation, of listening and responding to the core conservation and preservation values and ethics of the American people. Significant programs--the Land Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] and Historic Preservation Fund [HPF] are cut to the point of not being able to fill the backlog or immediate need. Of the one billion of funds generated, only 6-7 percent allocated for its intended purposes. In their zeal to shun Federal conservation efforts the majority isn't even making sensible choices in funding priorities. For example, zero funding listing and prelisting programs for endangered species and eliminating the National Biological Service demonstrate the height of hypocrisy on the part of the majority. Problems in managing our Federal resources will not go away just because we decide to quit addressing them, and not addressing them is certain to cost the American people more in the long run. I too want to decrease the Federal deficit. But the most sensible way to do that is through improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Interior Department programs or other funding of agencies with this measure. Many of the programs seriously underfunded or targeted for elimination in this bill are working. Improving programs that work goes a lot [[Page H 6940]] farther in reducing the Federal deficit than cutting funding and hoping the problem goes away. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all prelisting activities until the ESA is reauthorized. The $4.5 million cut from the FWS budget for prelisting activities is vital to the continuation of a highly successful program designed to prevent the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. There are over 4,000 species now under consideration for possible listing. Many of these species could be conserved through simple and inexpensive programs at the Federal, State, and local land management levels. The Fish and Wildlife Service candidate conservation program serves as an impetus to establishing conservation and stabilization activities before the species reaches critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to criticize the FWS for listing species without giving that agency the opportunity to conserve species before they reach critical levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to cry for reduced spending and greater economic efficiency while gutting a program that decreases the need for future costly emergency recovery actions. H.R. 1977 zero-funds all listing activities for endangered and threatened species, thereby extending the current moratorium. The majority is evading the legislative process by using agency appropriations to legislate national policy. By denying FWS any ability to conserve species proactively, Congress is ensuring further decline and the need for drastic and expensive actions to save species. In addition, there are no exceptions in this budget cut for emergency listings or for listing plant species which are potential sources of medicine. Plants, animals and people cannot cling to life waiting for the legislative process to run its course. The submersion of the National Biological Service into the National Geological Survey is another glaring illustration of fear run amok. There is legitimate room for debate over the merits of what the NBS or any other government agency does or how much funding should be provided for that work. However, the allegations leveled at the NBS, largely unfounded, are being used to justify elimination of the NBS. It is hypocritical for this Congress to call for better science and then deny funding for efforts specifically set up to conduct unbiased science. H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, severely crippling the efforts of the Federal Government to achieve consensus on policy actions and short changing the key efforts which backstop local nonprofit and private preservation efforts. Historic preservation provides a twofold benefit--preserving historic properties while helping communities achieve the economic advantages that occur as a result of historic preservation. It seems Members who take deficit reduction seriously would see the significant benefit that flow from a program that efficiently achieves a national goal while generating revenue to participating communities. Beyond these specifics the moratoria to prevent the public land giveaways under the 1872 mining laws are not included. Elimination of the essential weatherization program, appliance development commercialization program and other energy efficiency programs. Most energy conservation programs have been severely cut. Unfortunately this measure bans AmeriCorps funding initiated under the National Service law in spite of the fact that it was self funded by the 1993 law. The majority claims that their bill strikes a balance between the dual goals of reducing the deficit and protecting and enhancing the Nation's rich natural and cultural resources. This bill does no such thing and in the process, poorly serves the needs of the American people. It's certainly not a good measure we can and should do better. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a newcomer in terms of service but an oldcomer in terms of knowledge to the subcommittee. The gentleman brings a great perspective on Western issues, particularly as they affect the State of Washington, and the areas surrounding, on forests and some of the river problems. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks. I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this legislation in the fairest way possible. I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government. This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go through this very important bill. I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his forbearance in working with us on that amendment. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years. This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise. I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that I think both the gentleman and I would like it to. The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is a virtue. The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense. It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these natural resources, particularly our national parks. But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department