[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4602, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
         INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 458

       Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 4602) 
     making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes, all points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning on page 
     80, line 10, through line 19.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Filner). The gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Gordon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 458 is an open rule which 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 4602, the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI against all provisions of the 
bill with one exception which is noted by page and line number in the 
resolution.
  Clause 6 of rule XXI is also waived against all provisions in the 
bill.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits unauthorized appropriations or 
legislative provisions in general appropriations bills, and clause 6 of 
rule XXI prohibits reappropriations in general appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Sid Yates, ranking 
Republican Ralph Regula, and the Interior Subcommittee members for once 
again bringing a very difficult and complex piece of legislation to the 
floor.
  Chairman Yates and his subcommittee held 33 days of hearings and 
received testimony from over 800 witnesses which is recorded in 13 
published volumes totaling over 13,000 pages.
  H.R. 4602 is the product of hard work, long hours, and careful 
consideration of the facts and issues surrounding many diverse and 
intricate subjects.
  Chairman Yates and the subcommittee are responsible for funding 
programs and initiatives which range from alternative fuels research to 
the strategic petroleum reserve to national park land acquisition to 
the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Smithsonian 
Institution to managing our Nation's forests and streams to funding 
health and education programs for native Americans.
  This year all of this had to be done with drastically reduced 
resources. There was no getting around it. The subcommittee members had 
to roll up their sleeves, sharpen their pencils, weigh the options, and 
make the tough choices. I want to commend them for doing a tough job 
well.
  Preserving this country's natural, historical and cultural assets for 
future generations--as our parents and grandparents did for us--is very 
important. Chairman Yates shares this commitment.
  Tourists are visiting our national parks and battlefields with 
increasing frequency. Visitations were in excess of 265 million in 1993 
and are expected to top 281 million in 1995. While increased attendance 
is good news, the human and natural resources which make up the 
National Park Service are starting to strain at the seams.
  The subcommittee with the chairman's leadership made some tough 
choices this year to increase operating expenses. As the subcommittee 
report so aptly states, ``the need is real; but the money is limited.''
  I would like to once again congratulate Chairman Yates, ranking 
Republican Ralph Regula, and the subcommittee's staff for putting in 
the long hours, listening to all of the demands for increased funding, 
and making the tough choices.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a typical rule for fiscal year 1995 
appropriation bills. It is open and it waives points of order against 
reappropriations, unauthorized appropriations, and legislation in an 
appropriations bill, with the one exception. Although I do not favor 
these sweeping waivers, it is important to pass all appropriation bills 
as speedily as possible.
  H.R. 4602, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
and related agencies, is the eighth of the 13 appropriation bills to be 
considered by the House. As usual the Committee on Appropriations has 
set a fine example of how bipartisan cooperation can result in a 
fiscally responsible bill. This bill is about $195 million below last 
year's level and $230 million below the President's request.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill funds many important agencies, such as the 
Interior Department, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and 
the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, and others. While 
all of us may not agree on the funding levels for these various 
agencies established by this bill, the rule does not restrict any 
Member's right to fully participate in the amending process or to offer 
motions to strike or reduce funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that an amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] was not allowed under this rule. 
This amendment would help protect private property rights, an effort I 
strongly support. I realize the amendment would have required special 
protection under the rules of the House, but in this case I think it 
was the right thing to do. A motion was offered to make this amendment 
in order, but it was defeated on a party line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the results of rollcall votes 
taken in the Committee on Rules' meeting yesterday, as follows:

  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
      Rule on H.R. 4602--Interior Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1995

       Clinger: (A) An amendment to give preference in allocating 
     resources to national forests where revenues from timber 
     sales outweigh the cost of timber programs; and (B) An 
     amendment to provide that if the U.S. Forest Service shifts 
     resources, they must send Congress a study. Vote: (Defeated 
     3-5): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Hall, Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, Bonior, Wheat, 
     Slaughter, Solomon.
       Tauzin: An amendment to provide that funds appropriated for 
     implementation of the Endangered Species Act could not be 
     used in a manner that results in an interpretation of the act 
     not consistent with the decision in Sweet Home Chapter of 
     Communities for a Greater Oregon v. Babbitt. Vote: (Defeated 
     3-5): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Hall, Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, Bonior, Wheat, 
     Slaughter, Solomon.

  Mr. Speaker, again I support the adoption of this rule with 
misgivings. I think it is unfair that the Rules Committee waived the 
rules on certain provisions in the bill but refused to waive points of 
order on amendments of both Republicans and Democrats on a partisan 
basis. Be that as it may, we are where we are. The bill needs to be 
passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this year, as I did last year, to 
express my deep frustration about the lack of funding for this Nation's 
timber sale program in our national forests. Once again we are 
providing a wholly inadequate amount to support our national timber 
program. By doing so, we are undermining our chances for a strong 
economic recovery as well as jeopardizing millions of jobs. We can just 
about count on yet another major domestic industry going down the 
tubes. Every year there are several of us that stand here and raise the 
red flag--as a strong signal to our colleagues that serious problems 
lie ahead--but it is clear that very few are listening. Before you know 
it, it will be just too late.
  Let us just take a quick look at the facts. This Nation's district, 
the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. This forest is an above 
cost forest, one that returns funds to the U.S. Treasury every year. In 
fact, last year the forest returned over $9 million. I am pleased that 
for every dollar spent in the Allegheny, $4 is returned. Yet this 
steady decrease in budget funds along with new administration policies 
means that the timber program in the Allegheny will be seriously hurt--
even though it is fiscally and environmentally well managed and makes 
money for the Federal Government.
  In addition, to the very scarce resources being appropriated, we may 
potentially be facing yet another problem which is the shifting of 
funds by the Forest Service between regions and forests. Basically, it 
is robbing Peter to pay Paul even if the forest, such as the Allegheny, 
has a successful and cost-effective timber program. This makes no sense 
and is unfair. To address this issue, I offered amendments in the Rules 
Committee which would require that some recognition be given to forests 
that are consistently above cost and that it funds are shifted between 
forests and regions we should understand the fiscal ramifications of 
doing so with a report to timber sale program has rapidly declined over 
the past 5 years. During the late 1980's, the Forest Service Timber 
Sale Program received full funding to sell about 11 billion board feet 
annually. For fiscal year 1994, we have a program resulting in 4.6 
billion board feet--more than halved in just the past 5 years. 
President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget reduces the program to 4.4 
billion board feet with further cuts by the Appropriations Committee. 
We are now at the lowest level since the 1950's. Should we anticipate 
that within the next few years the program will be cut to zero?
  What does this mean? Simply put, it means fewer jobs. It means higher 
lumber prices. It means higher housing prices. It means a slower 
economic recovery. In fact, it means inflation probably followed by 
higher interests rates which are likely to be followed by recession. 
Lumber prices are skyrocketing as our supply continues to tighten and 
the cost of the average single family home has increase $5,000.
  I am one of many Members that have a Federal forest in my district, 
the Allegheny National Forests in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, this forest is an above-cost forest, one that returns 
funds to the U.S. Treasury every year. In fact, last year the forest 
returned over $9 million. I am pleased that for every dollar spent in 
the Allegheny, $4 is returned. This steady decrease in budget funds, 
along with new administration policies, means that the timber program 
in the Allegheny will be seriously hurt, even though it is fiscally and 
environmentally well managed and makes money for the Federal 
Government.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the very scarce resources being 
appropriated, we may potentially be facing yet another problem, which 
is the shifting of funds by the Forest Service between regions and 
forests. Basically it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Even if forests 
such as the Allegheny have a successful and cost-effective timber 
program, this makes no sense and is totally unfair. To address this 
issue, I offered amendments in the Committee on Rules which would 
require some recognition be given to forests that are consistently 
above cost, and that if funds are shifted between forests and regions, 
we should understand the fiscal ramifications of doing so with a report 
to Congress by the Forest Service.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is not the direction that we should 
be moving. Just ask those who are trying to buy a new home for the 
first time. Just ask those living in the rural communities surrounding 
our national forests. Just ask those who are unemployed simply because 
there is not enough money to fund the timber program. I urge my 
colleagues to take heed before it is too late--although many would 
think we have already passed that point.
  I must reluctantly oppose this rule because my amendments were not 
made in order.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I simply want to say that 
I think this is a fair rule. I understand the concern of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, and I share that, but that was a policy issue that 
was fought out in the subcommittee, and there are, of course, forces on 
both sides as to the question of how much timber we should sell, and on 
top of that, we have the impact of the Endangered Species Act, which 
has slowed the harvesting of timber considerably.
  He is right that many first-time homebuyers are finding they have to 
pay an extra estimated $3,000 to $4,000 as a result of a shortage of 
lumber, or at least a shortage to the point that the price is going up.
  I want to simply say again this is an open rule. The only thing that 
we protected are the unauthorized features of the bill such as the 
endangered species and the Bureau of Land Management.
  BLM has not been authorized since 1982, and we hope that the 
authorizing committee will address these concerns in terms of permanent 
authority. But I recognize that there is some difficulty oftentimes on 
the other side of the Capitol in getting a conclusion to the 
authorizing bills.
  The rule is as open as it possibly can be as far as the amount of 
funding for any of the specific programs. They are subject to 
amendments. People will have ample opportunity to make changes that 
will reflect different priorities in the expenditure of funds.
  I would point out, as has been mentioned earlier, that we are 
addressing problems with almost $200 million less than we had in fiscal 
1994, and even though the parks, and the forests have had great 
increase in visitor usage. As a result, we are not able to do visitor 
centers that would enhance the experience for those that go to our 
national parks and forests.
  We have not been able to do as much maintenance as we should on 
facilities, and I would hope that in the future we can have more 
available in the way of funding to meet those needs.
  We have had to deny some of the requests that Members have made that 
are good projects, but with $200 million less than last year, it was 
impossible to stretch the budget out to meet all of these requirements.
  I certainly urge my colleagues to support the rule. There will be 
plenty of opportunity to address policy questions by way of amendments.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, 
and in strong support of the bill. Once again, this excellent committee 
of the Congress has had to make some very difficult choices in a number 
of areas.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, I have 
carefully reviewed that portion of the bill affecting the Indian tribes 
and Alaska Native villages of this country.
  The problems of Indian country are many. The funding is never enough. 
But I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 
and the committee for making those very hard choices.
  One critical need was to provide adequate funding for Indian health 
care. I believe the committee has responded to this need and made this 
a priority, as do I.
  Let me mention the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs and the 
Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the chairman, will also be providing the 
authorization for the Indian health care bill, but I particularly want 
to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for 
the very substantial funding that continues a number of successful and 
innovative measures, not just in the Indian Health Service but in many 
parts of Indian country that are administered by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, and other Federal agencies, as well 
as by tribes and tribal organizations.
  Needless to say, I would like to thank the chairman for funding a 
large number of Indian tribes in the State of New Mexico. As my 
colleagues know, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] and I have the 
largest Native American populations of every Member of this body, and 
what I was specifically concerned about was the funding and staffing of 
the Ship Rock Hospital located on the Navajo nation as well as the 
funding of irrigation projects of the Cochiti Jemez and Isleta Pueblos. 
I am confident inclusion of these funds for these programs and others 
will greatly assist tribal efforts to promote self-determination as 
well as protect health, safety, and welfare of their members.
  Finally, we need to pass this rule to ensure that we do not have 
harmful amendments that would gut the Endangered Species Act and turn 
back the clock on environmental protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment briefly on a more 
provincial issue involving the National Park Service and its efforts at 
reorganization. While it is well known that the Park Service has been 
evaluating different alternatives for several months, there have been a 
number of rumors that certain offices are going to be shut down, 
including the Southwest regional office in Santa Fe. While I recognize 
that several options will be looked at, and that it is only speculation 
at this point, as somebody who represents Santa Fe, NM, and the western 
region of the Park Service, I would just like to make note that it is 
critically important that this not happen.
  The Southwest region of the National Park Service is at a crucial 
point in the implementation of several legislative initiatives in New 
Mexico and other states in the region. Should the region office in 
Santa Fe be shut down or significantly restructured, I am fearful that 
these initiatives would suffer to a great degree. Additionally, the 
regional office in Santa Fe has made great strides in the hiring of 
women, minorities, and handicapped individuals. Any dissolution or 
major restructuring will clearly be a setback to this progress.
  To conclude on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I 
do not oppose streamlining of Federal agencies, including the National 
Park Service. However, we must look at the most prudent use of our 
resources in the context of the structure and mission of those 
agencies, and hopefully make wise decisions in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill funds our public lands, the BLM, the Park 
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill funds also the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  I think that the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 
once again has risen to the challenge on a number of issues.
  I think the minority has done equally well, too, in ensuring that on 
many of these issues the concerns of those with the National Endowment 
for the Arts, that we proceed with art that is mainstream, are taken 
care of.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I mainly am here to voice my strong support for 
the provisions affecting Native Americans that have been funded in this 
bill. Once again, it is a good bill, a tribute to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]; the men and women of Indian 
country owe him enormously. He silently over the years has made sure 
that while the rest of the Nation has forgotten Indian country, that he 
has not, and he is to be thanked.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say this is a very 
important bill that deals with the preservation and restoration of our 
natural resources and our historic, cultural, architectural resources. 
It is important that we move forward with this bill.
  This is an open rule, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________