[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]

 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], one of the excellent members of our 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1995 
Interior appropriations bill. I want to thank Chairman Yates and the 
ranking Republican on the subcommittee, Ralph Regula, for their hard 
work and attention to this country's natural resource needs. This 
year's bill has been an especially painful exercise because the 
subcommittee had to find a way to cut $200 million from the fiscal year 
1994 enacted spending level. Somehow, this $13.6 billion bill achieves 
that most difficult requirement. The result is a responsible bill that 
is fair and evenly balanced. It is one that we can be comfortable 
supporting.
  Certainly, this bill is not perfect. There are provisions in here 
that I disagree with. I strongly oppose the 1-year moratorium on mining 
patents included in the bill. Mining patents should be limited--perhaps 
even abolished--but that issue should be, and is being addressed in the 
proper venue--the authorizing committees. The House and Senate are set 
to go to conference on mining reform and they should be allowed to 
perform their work without the interference of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I also have concerns about reductions in the Timber Sales Program. 
Although the bill does not reduce that program by 6 percent as the 
administration requested, it still does not provide adequate funding 
for the Timber Sales Program. The administration requested funds to 
harvest 4.38 billion board feet; that is almost 60 percent less than 
the program allowed in the early 1990's. Fiscal year 1994 funding 
represents a 16-percent cut from the already low fiscal year 1993 
level. This bill would permit approximately 4.5 billion board feet to 
be harvested--not enough, but an improvement over the budget 
submission.
  I want to thank the chairman for his willingness to work with me and 
other members on issues of funding for the National Biological Survey. 
This bill freezes funding for the NBS and includes some important 
private property rights protections that were adopted by the House when 
the NBS authorization was considered by the House. I continue to have 
real, not imaginary, concerns about the direction of the National 
Biological Survey, but this report and bill language at least preserves 
the position previously adopted by the House.
  I continue to be concerned about forest health in my State of 
Arizona. A recent report by the Forest Service, environmentalists, and 
scientists concludes that wildfire and disease could destroy most of 
the forests in Arizona and the West within the next 15-30 years. I know 
the chairman and subcommittee share my concerns and I will continue to 
work with them on this pressing issue.
  This appropriation bill also includes $6.5 million for land 
acquisition at the east unit of the Saguaro National Monument. This 
fully authorized project is one of the highest priorities of the 
National Park Service. The monument is facing an imminent threat from 
development and this funding is essential if we are to preserve this 
irreplaceable national ecological treasure.
  I commend the chairman and members of the subcommittee for producing 
a good bill in a very difficult year. I urge support for the fiscal 
year 1995 Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to discuss one of the 
amendments that is scheduled to be filed against our bill later in the 
debate. It pertains to the appropriations for the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  No agency has suffered from distortion and unfair criticism more than 
has the National Endowment for the Arts. Even under the excellent 
administration of its present chairman, Jane Alexander, the critics are 
using distortion, untruths, and anything that will cut the 
appropriations for the agency.
  All of this, of course, revolves around the question, what is art? I 
suspect that this controversy goes back even to the wall drawings in 
the caves of prehistoric man, where I am sure the drawings were 
criticized by other Members of the group.
  Michelangelo, one of the great, great artists in the history of the 
world, was criticized by Pope Julius the 2d about his work on the 
Sistine Chapel. And he had to change it. His heavenly and beautiful 
sculpture of David was criticized by the church because he had failed 
to place a fig leaf at an appropriate place on David.
  The fact is, artists have always rebelled against the academicians 
because the academicians required little deviation from their 
established norms, their landscapes, their portraits. The rebels, like 
the Impressionists in their time, were called the Fauves, the made 
dogs. And then the Impressionists, of course, were followed by the 
Expressionists and then they were followed by the abstract 
Impressionists.
  The point, of course, is that art is not static. It is always moving. 
It has its rebels. It has its detractors.
  It is said that when President Harry Truman was shown one of the WPA 
paintings, which later sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I am 
sure, he said, ``If that is art, I am a Hottentot.''
  Well, President Truman, while he played the piano, was not reckoned 
to be one of the great art critics of this time.
  Under attack are all forms of art: The theater, the ballet, music, 
books. We remember the phrase, ``Banned in Boston.'' Ulysses by the 
great Irish writer James Joyce, was banned by Customs inspectors and 
the case came up in court.

                              {time}  1140

  It was alleged that the book was pornographic. I would like to quote 
from the decision of a very enlightened judge in 5 Fed. Supp. 182. This 
is what the judge said in the decision about the ``Ulysses.''
  He says, ``The question is whether or not this book is pornographic. 
If it is, it has to be banned.''
  He says, ``And it also explains another aspect of the book which I 
have further to consider; namely, Joyce's sincerity and his honest 
effort to show exactly how the minds of his characters operate.''
  Then the quote goes on to say, ``For his attempts sincerely and 
honestly to realize his objective has required him incidentally to use 
certain words which are generally considered dirty words and has led at 
times to what many think is a too poignant preoccupation with sex in 
the thoughts of his characters.
  ``The words which are criticized as dirty are old Saxon words known 
to almost all men and, I venture, to many women, and are such words as 
would be naturally and habitually used, I believe, by the types of folk 
whose life, physical and mental, Joyce is seeking to describe.''
  Then it says, ``If one does not wish to associate with such folks as 
Joyce describes, that is one's own choice. In order to avoid indirect 
contact with them one may not wish to read `Ulysses'; that is quite 
understandable. But when such a great artist in words, as Joyce 
undoubtedly is, seeks to draw a true picture of the lower middle class 
in a European city, ought it to be impossible for the American public'' 
to read that book?
  The court concludes with this statement: ``I am quite aware that 
owing to some of its issues `Ulysses' is a rather strong draught to ask 
some sensitive, though normal, persons to take. But my considered 
opinion, after long reflection, is that whilst in many places the 
effect of `Ulysses' on the reader undoubtedly is somewhat emetic, 
nowhere does it tend to be an aphrodisiac.
  ```Ulysses' may, therefore, be admitted into the United States.''
  Criticism has recently been aimed at one of the grants being given by 
the Walker Art Center, which in turn had received a grant from the 
National Endowment for the Arts, a grant to a person whose name is Ron 
Athey. The Walker Art Center, when we asked them about it, considered 
his performance to be serious, considered it to be artistic. According 
to the officials at the Walker Art Center, and this is performance art, 
let me say to the Members, and performance art expresses the deep 
emotions of those who are giving the performance.
  Mr. Athey had as his prop another person, and he used acupuncture 
needles, perhaps a knife, to cut the back of another person. The 
newspapers that reported it said that the blood was flowing freely and 
had to be stopped by towels, and that many people left the performance.
  This is what the Walker Art Center says about it, about the 
performance, he performed ``his ritualistic work exploring modern day 
martyrdom as it relates to AIDS. Athey is HIV-positive.'' He is very 
unhappy about it, ``but he has stated repeatedly that his co-performer 
whose blood was raised is not infected with HIV. Mr. Athey's work 
includes scarification and the use of acupuncture needles.
  ``According to officials at the Walker,'' the Center ``used less than 
$150 for this grant,'' a one-night performance, ``less than $150 in 
Endowment Fund funds to support the performance.''
  It goes on to say, ``The Walker Art Center followed universal safety 
guidelines as developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 
provided to the Walker by the Minnesota AIDS Project. The Minnesota 
Department of Health has concurred. There was no threat to anybody or 
to members of the audience.
  ``Contrary to erroneous press accounts, there was no blood dripping 
from towels. Several paper towels were used to blot surface blood (akin 
to a shaving nick),'' which most of the Members of the House have 
experienced. ``This blood was not HIV-positive.
  ``* * * There was no panic among audience members nor a mad rush for 
the exits. A large majority of audience members stayed for the post-
performance discussions.
  ``Walker officials recognized'' that the theme might be controversial 
and it advised viewer discretion to those who were coming in to see the 
performance, and on calendars that advertised the performance. It told 
them that they were likely to be shocked by the performance. Those who 
went had that in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, this case will be used, as were the cases of 
Mapplethorpe and Serrano, to try to cut the appropriations for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  What is art? With my limited education in the history of art, I am 
not one to say what is art. I doubt that I would have gone to see Mr. 
Athey and his performance, but that fact does not mean that others did 
not want to see the performance of Mr. Athey. Should that performance 
have been banned so that other Americans who wanted to see it could not 
see it after being appropriately warned? I do not think so. I think 
that the American people are mature enough to know what they want to 
see after they have been appropriately warned. I do not think it ought 
to be censored.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure this will be brought up later. There will be 
plenty of time later to discuss this matter again.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the 
committee for his work on the Interior appropriation bill, and for the 
cooperation we have had these past years, which has been extraordinary, 
on subjects of interest.
  The Walker Art Center in Minnesota is a proud cultural institution in 
my sister city of Minneapolis. I just want to say to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] that there are many who would want to sweep under 
the rug many of the problems and issues that we have before this 
country. There seems to be a phenomenon, Mr. Chairman, to associate 
with the expression and revelations of problems that are occurring 
whether it is AIDS or other serious problems we have, in our Nation; to 
attribute that to, in fact, the arts, to attribute it to the Federal 
Government as actually causing the problems.
  In essence, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to respond to such issues and 
claims. We are trying to protect free expression--some of which maybe 
uncomfortable. I think all of us believe in the free choice of men and 
the individual as one of the highest goals of our Western culture and 
society, which is manifest in this Nation, and not in determinism; that 
is to say, that somehow the events and what people are exposed to 
shapes, in essence, their behavior.
  We are responding to the serious problem of AIDS and HIV infection, 
and clearly these arts are talking about topics that are obviously not 
comfortable. They are controversial. They cause a lot of anxiety in me, 
and I suspect they do in many of our constituents and people across 
this Nation, but I think we want to deal with problems and face up to 
them, and we have to recognize that the artists are very often at the 
cutting edge of dealing with these serious social problems, whether 
they are issues of race relations, whether they are health problems, 
the whole myriad of things that make up this great pluralistic society 
that we call our Nation, America.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the arts are in the forefront of that 
controversy. The small contribution we make here is much less than that 
which is provided by other nations to try to provide the crucible of 
thought and creativeness that characterizes American arts, and artists, 
which are one of our greatest exports and one of our finest expressions 
of freedom as a people.
  I commend the gentleman, Mr. Yates, of his often solo defense of 
those efforts.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, 
for pointing out that today we live in a society and in a culture where 
there is too much evidence of blood and violence, and that there are 
protests; that those who suffer from one of the great diseases of the 
day, one that we still do not know how to control, AIDS, those who are 
suffering from HIV virus are protesting the fact that they find 
themselves in this kind of a milieu in our world.
  I think we have to recognize they have a right to protest. We may not 
agree with them and we may not agree with the form it takes, but 
protest is the right of every American.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], one of the excellent members of our 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal 1995 
Interior funding bill. It signals a commitment to preserving both our 
natural and fiscal resources.
  As we take up the Interior appropriations bill, I would like to take 
this opportunity to thank Subcommittee Chairman Yates and Ranking 
Member Ralph Regula for their leadership on this legislation. As a 
member of the subcommittee I have certainly appreciated all of the hard 
work they and their staffs have put into this bill. Their insight and 
tough scrutiny of Interior project funding requests indicates their 
commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  While this year's budgetary constraints prompted a strict review of 
the entire bill, I am extremely pleased that my colleagues shared my 
view that the southern California programs funded in the bill are 
important investments for the entire Nation.
  I especially appreciate the consideration of southern California's 
needs with the inclusion of what amounts to $3 million for the national 
communities conservation plan. Money is slated for the State of 
California, San Diego, Orange and Riverside Counties. I also commend 
the inclusion of funding for an innovative project like the national 
fish and wildlife foundation's land acquisition program in San Diego, 
CA. The $1 million provided in this bill will be matched by private 
donations, for a total of $2 million, in a cost effective partnership 
between Government and private efforts. Programs like these are vital 
for the enhancement of our resource conservation efforts.
  The Department of the Interior, charged with the preservation of our 
precious natural resources, naturally must include air quality 
improvement as part of their efforts. As a member, representing the 
southern California region, I have long championed the use of 
alternative fuels as a method of solving this region's air quality 
problems. For this reason, I applaud the inclusion of funds for the 
Department's innovative alternative fueled vehicles program. The 
Department is directed to consider Federal fleet purchases of all types 
of vehicles including alcohol, natural gas, propane, and electric 
vehicles. This measure also funds the Park Service's efforts to 
introduce electric and natural gas vehicles in both Yosemite National 
Park and the Grand Canyon.
  In southern California, our water related resources are extremely 
precious. I am happy to see that the committee included funding for the 
bays and estuaries program in the southern California region. Residents 
of this region will continue to enjoy the benefits of the important 
program.
  In addition, southern California's sharing a border with Mexico are 
uniquely impacted by the NAFTA agreement. For this reason increased 
funding for NAFTA-related law enforcement efforts will help to ensure 
that southern California's natural resources are not negatively 
impacted by the implementation of the trade agreement.
  Our national parks represent this country's commitment to preserving 
our natural heritage for this and future generations. The inclusion of 
land acquisition and management funding for the San Bernardino National 
Forest and the Cleveland National Forest is vital to the fulfillment of 
this goal. In particular, funding for Cleveland National Park will 
complete the acquisition of the beautiful Roberts Ranch area. Programs 
like these are vital for the enhancement of our resource conservation 
efforts.
  However, I caution Members to remember that funding for national 
parks is scarce. As you continue to consider the Desert Protection Act, 
I urge you to keep in mind that these new parks designated in the bill 
will only siphon away scarce funds better spent maintaining existing 
monuments and parks. What good are national parks if they cannot be 
maintained at a level which makes them accessible.
  Vistor centers are an important resource for the attending pubic and 
are part of what makes a park accessible to patrons. I wish to commend 
the committee's incorporation of funding for the planning of a visitor 
center for the Lassen Volcanic National Park. These funds will be 
matched by private donations and provides by the cooperation of public 
and private resources.
  Furthermore, funding for the Quincy Library group demonstrates an 
important partnership between local and Federal agencies. This group is 
committed to finding consensus on issues surrounding forest health, the 
environment, and timber sales in local California communities affected 
by Federal regulation.
  Finally, as a former dentist, I wish to recognize the inclusion of 
additional funds for Indian Health Service's Dental Service Program. 
This funding will help to pay for new and replacement dental units and 
services. Native Americans, served under this program, will benefit 
greatly.
  The hard work of both full committee chairman, ranking members, and 
staff paves the way for meeting our Nations Interior needs.
  I also support funding the bill for other California projects 
including land acquisition and management for the Big Sur/Los Padres 
National Forest, the Lake Tahoe Basin, North Fork American Wild and 
Scenic River, the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Cache Creek, San 
Pedro National Park, Grasslands, the San Francisco Bay and Stone Lakes 
National Wildlife Refuges, Golden Gate, and for the Santa Monica 
mountains; the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Water Supply 
System; the replacement of Giant Forest Facilities and the generals 
highway underground utilities in Sequoia National Park; and warehouse 
maintenance and electrical system rehabilitation in Yosemite National 
Park.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Darden].
  Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4602, the 
fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Yates 
and Mr. Regula for their diligent efforts in creating a good bill under 
difficult budgetary circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Interior Subcommittee for 
addressing the needs of several important historic sites in the State 
of Georgia.
  The committee has been kind enough to include funding to renovate 
facilities at the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. These 
facilities have not been improved in almost three decades.
  As the result of discussions between local nonprofit organizations, 
community leaders, and regional U.S. National Park Service officials, a 
plan to provide improvements to the facilities at Kennesaw Battlefield 
Park has been developed. Community groups have committed to 
contributing $300,000 toward the total cost of this project.
  Mr. Chairman, 130 years ago this week, the battlefield at Kennesaw 
Mountain was the site of important battle activity during General 
Sherman's Georgia campaign in 1864. On behalf of the citizens of 
Georgia's Seventh District, I thank the committee for its assistance in 
improving and preserving this important historic and cultural resource 
in Cobb County, GA.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the committee for its 
continuing assistance to other ongoing Georgia projects including, the 
protection of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, 
assistance in completing the National Prisoner of War Memorial facility 
at Andersonville, and development of the Pinhoti portion of the 
Appalachian Trail.
  Mr. Chairman, I again commend the committee and urge support of the 
bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been hearing from people in my congressional 
district about the proposed DOE rule on hot water heaters, outlawing 
the conventional resistance hot water heater and favoring only the heat 
pump water heater. A lot of my constituents are below the $15,000 
income. They have electric water heaters now, are not on gas lines, 
living in rural Indiana. I am sure that other Members of Congress have 
heard the same complaint. I see on page 97 of the report that the 
committee is aware of this potential rule and is going to be watching 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the committee will watch very closely and 
consider the number of people in the country that have water heaters 
now, the conventional electric water heater, resistance types, that 
would be outlawed and cannot afford the expensive hot water heater, or 
the heat pump water heater.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will watch it very closely and 
make sure the DOE does the right thing.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we are very 
concerned and will try to protect this language.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4602, the 
1995 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to note that I have had the honor of serving for 
18 years on this subcommittee. During that entire time, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has been the chairman of the subcommittee, 
has served there for 20 years and done an extraordinary job. I cannot 
think of a fairer, more evenhanded chairman than the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates]. I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], who has always been extraordinarily helpful and easy to work 
with.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Yates, 
and the ranking minority member, Mr. Regula, for once again showing 
superb leadership in crafting this important appropriations bill for 
the Nation. The circumstances under which the subcommittee has 
developed the bill have been difficult, as we have had to cut $230 
million in budget authority from the administration's requested funding 
levels for programs under our jurisdiction in order to contribute to 
deficit reduction. I commend our chairman and ranking minority member 
for their even-handedness in dealing with the constraints we have 
faced. Our bill reduces funding to the required BA and outlay levels, 
but does so in a manner that I believe is fair to all concerned.
  I urge all Members to support the passage of this bill. H.R. 4602, 
the Interior appropriations bill, provides for multiuse management of 
our Federal lands--allowing for timber harvesting, recreation use, and 
wilderness designation. The bill ensures that there is adequate funding 
for the protection of endangered species and the surveying of vital 
habitat. It ensures the operation of our National Park System, supports 
the health, economic, and educational needs of native Americans, and 
invests resources to ensure that the United States stays ahead of the 
curve in investments in energy conservation. I am also proud that the 
Interior appropriations bill takes the lead in investing in our 
Nation's cultural institutions. This bill funds the National Endowment 
for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Kennedy 
Center, and the Smithsonian Institution.

  As a Member from the Northwest, I have shared with my constituents a 
difficult and complex set of circumstances relative to the management 
of Federal forest lands. There is still a great deal to be done to help 
provide stability for workers, businesses, and communities that have 
been greatly impacted by the drastic reductions in timber harvest 
levels in the region. This bill will help. It includes critical funding 
to implement elements of the President's forest plan, which includes 
resources to move forward with economic assistance and regionwide 
watershed restoration activities. Judge Dwyer has lifted a long held 
court injunction on Federal lands, and now it is time to move things 
forward with new strategies such as adaptive management, and a greater 
reliance on ecological-sensitive silvicultural techniques such as 
salvage and thinning.
  Again, I urge full support for the bill and its final passage.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], the ranking member of the authorizing committee, 
the Committee on Natural Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] for their 
fine work.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a good deal wrong with this bill. 
Specifically, it spends less money on the things important to me, and 
more money on things I do not think should be funded. Further, it 
causes all kinds of problems with job-creating industries in public 
land States. But, there are some good things the committee has done.
  I was gravely concerned when the administration submitted its budget 
with a proposed $300 million budget cut for the Indian Health Service 
for fiscal year 1995. This was a 50-percent cut in funding for health 
care for Indians and Alaska Natives, breaking a trust. After the 
President met with tribal leaders to smoke the peace pipe, they offered 
a small increase. The administration's proposed cuts affected new and 
replacement hospital projects currently under construction in Alaska. I 
would like to commend and thank Chairman Yates for his hard work and 
effort in reinstating critical and basic funding within the Indian 
Health Services' budget. Of utmost importance to my Alaska Native 
constituents is the completion of the Alaska Native Medical Center in 
Anchorage, AK. This statewide regional facility has needed replacement 
since the 1960's and I would like to thank Chairman Yates for 
reinstating the $17 million to complete this important project.
  In addition to the Alaska Native Medical Center, the Kotzebue 
hospital is in the final phase of completion. I, again, thank Chairman 
Yates and the committee for reinstating $2,863,000 to complete this 
facility. This much needed facility is currently undergoing 
construction during the short summer construction season of the far 
north and I appreciate the funding for this. The committee has also 
appropriated $405,000 for operations of this new hospital and has also 
reinstated $64,000 for completion of the Kotzebue staff headquarters in 
Kotzebue. This facility was also under construction when the 
administration cut this funding out of the Indian Health Service 
budget. Also appropriated for Kotzebue is $933,000 for a dental clinic. 
This dental clinic serves Native clients from throughout the Northwest 
Borough region and I thank the chairman for this funding.
  Lastly, I appreciate the $115,000 increase within the National 
Community Health Representatives Program. As you are aware, the 
Community Health Aide Program in Alaska is a vital and lifesaving 
program which serves my rural Alaska native constituents. The community 
health aides are the first to provide basic health and emergency care 
to all rural residents. I thank the members of the Appropriations 
Committee for the increase in this critical program.
  With regard to the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] budget, I want to 
thank the committee for again including language directing the BIA to 
require base funding for all self-governance programs. Last year, the 
BIA failed to provide full base funding to five of my southeast Alaska 
tribes and I thank the committee for their explicit language requiring 
full base funding for all self-governance programs.
  I am also pleased that the committee chose to include an additional 
$1,500,000 to restore the fish hatchery rehabilitation program to its 
1994 level. As you are aware, last year, Alaska suffered one of its 
first and worst Chum Salmon fishery disaster on the Yukon and Kuskokwim 
Rivers and the Northwest region of my State. The bureau provided 
funding last year to begin addressing solutions to this disaster and I 
thank the chairman and committee for funding this program again this 
year.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the Interior Subcommittee, and especially 
Chairman Yates and Mr. Regula, for setting priorities and working 
within the constraints of our serious budget situation. I thank them 
for recognizing the national importance of Florida's natural resources, 
especially the troubled treasure of the Florida Everglades. Funding for 
our ``river of grass'' has been increased by nearly $20 million in this 
bill--an investment in the long term health of this jewel that is well 
worth the expense.
  In addition, with the strong support of the Florida delegation, this 
bill contains language continuing the prohibition on new leasing for 
offshore oil and gas rigs, and a moratorium on drilling in the waters 
surrounding the highly sensitive Florida Keys. By this action, we are 
protecting delicate environmental resources--resources that makeup the 
backbone of Florida's economy. Of course, I wish we could avoid this 
annual stop-gap measure, by reaching consensus on a long-term energy 
strategy, and the role offshore oil and gas production will play. 
Toward this end my Florida colleague Harry Johnston and I have 
introduced H.R. 4312, which seeks to find a lasting balance between our 
energy priorities and environmental needs.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams].

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, one of the first and most important things 
children learn is to look both ways before they cross the street. It is 
good advice that Congress would be wise to accept and give when it 
passes legislation that impacts the viability of businesses and jobs.
  Is it not interesting that before a builder can develop a tract of 
land the Environmental Protection Agency requires the submission of an 
environmental impact statement. This is the equivalent of ``look before 
you cross.''
  But when it comes to legislation meant to protect the environment, 
rarely are cost-benefit or economic impact statements required; and 
even when they are required, they are typically ignored.
  Looking after you cross the street is not too smart.
  In 1988 Congress designated a 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi 
River as the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area, to 
foster an atmosphere that preserves the economic and social benefits 
this historic corridor provides.
  The final plan was adopted last month and deserves praise, but it 
fails to answer all the concerns between environmental protection and 
jobs.
  As it stands, the MNRRA plan calls for an economic impact statement 
to be conducted during implementation. That makes zero sense. Look 
before you cross.
  Whether we are crossing the street or possibly hurting business and 
killing jobs we need to think before we act.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman if he might be willing 
to engage in a colloquy with me, and to address the chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] with regard to a concern I have.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that as resources become more 
scarce to fund our Nation's timber sale program that these resources 
may be inequitably distributed by the U.S. Forest Service between 
regions and forests. If this occurs, I am concerned that the timber 
sale programs for those forests which have cost effective and 
successful programs, such as the one in my district, may be negatively 
impacted--and there will not be the continuity or stability which is so 
critical to keeping these programs and their surrounding communities 
viable.
  I would ask that for fiscal year 1995, the House Appropriations 
Committee closely oversee the distribution of appropriations funds 
between regions and within regions for the timber sale program to 
ensure that there is equity in the distribution of these very limited 
resources. In addition, I would ask that the House Appropriations 
Committee request that the Forest Service prepare a justification of 
how the funds specifically for the timber sale program will be 
distributed among all the regions.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern with 
the possible negative impacts due to Forest Service decisions on the 
distribution of resources among the various Forest Service regions. 
While the gentleman has stated his concern with the timber program, the 
committee noted in its report a more general concern with the 
allocation of overall resources among the Forest Service regions, 
including, for example, recreation funding. We have asked the Forest 
Service to include in its budget request for fiscal year 1996 
information describing the criteria used to allocate National Forest 
System funds among regions. I think the gentleman's concern can be 
addressed within the context of this information, which is more 
consistent with the Forest Service's move to ecosystem management, 
without placing the sole emphasis on one resource only, such as timber 
sales.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much and 
appreciate your position and would be grateful for any assistance that 
you can provide. I thank the gentleman for all your work on this bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the chairman has discussed 
the problem that arose in Minnesota with the Walker institution. I 
would simply point out that that was a decision that was made by the 
local community agency and ant by the NEA, and I would like to quote 
from a letter I received form Jane Alexander, the chairman of the NEA.
  She says, and I quote.

       I have been to 36 States so far and have seen the wonderful 
     arts organizations the Endowment has made possible in areas 
     of the United States form the most rural to the most dense 
     inner city, organizations which build communities through the 
     celebration of heritage or that address the needs of at-risk 
     youth in after-school programs or that go into classrooms to 
     teach music or painting. The National Endowment for the Arts 
     is an unqualified success as an agency. For every dollar we 
     award, we leverage $11 to $20 from other public and private 
     sources in the community.

  Then she closes in her letter with the statement,

       I have devoted the first year of my chairmanship to turning 
     around the reputation of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     by engaging people all over the country in a dialog about all 
     the very good projects that we support.

  And so I think this is a point that the chairman is trying to make. I 
know that she is very concerned about what has happened in a few 
instances, but I do not think we should overlook the enormously 
productive work that is done by the NEA.
  I know that we had testimony in the subcommittee from young people 
whose lives have been touched in a very, very positive way by their 
experience in neighborhood workshops where they have had an exposure to 
music that they might otherwise never have experienced, and in the 
process have become quite interested themselves. Several gave brief 
performances for the subcommittee, and it was extremely impressive.
  I think those are some of the things that do not make the news but 
certainly are very constructive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me say I rise generally in support of the bill. I think the 
committee has done an excellent job. I know how difficult it is to try 
to cover the needs that fall within this committee and this agency with 
the amount of money that is available.
  I do want to comment, however, in general on a couple of things. One 
of them, of course, is the mining moratorium, and I just would comment 
a little bit on what might be termed by some as a little hyperbole in 
terms of mining, but more importantly, the system.
  I guess it does distress me a little bit that we talk sometimes about 
the fact that there are 10 billion dollars' worth of gold nuggets lying 
out there on the ground and you simply pay $800 or whatever it is and 
go out there and pick them up. That is not the case, of course.
  In order to have something that is valuable out of that area, you 
have to invest $1 billion. You have to create jobs for 30 years. You 
have to pay taxes. And you do some economic development kinds of things 
So it is a little overstated to suggest that there are $10 billion 
there. There are not $10 billion there until somebody puts in the 
investment to be able to bring that product to a useful and valuable 
area.
  But notwithstanding that, I do not disagree that there needs to be 
some change. As a matter of fact, the conference committee will begin 
today to talk about it. I do not know of any reason why it needs to be 
patented at all, quite frankly.
  I am for some royalties. I think they are much too high in the House 
bill. But most of all, if we have a procedure here and we say there are 
authorizing committees and there are appropriating committees, then 
that is what we ought to do is we ought to authorize in one and 
appropriate in another.
  It is pretty frustrating for those of us who are on the authorizing 
committee to go ahead and do it in the appropriating committees. I 
think that is wrong.
  Let me shift just quickly to MMS, the Minerals Management Service. We 
talked about that at great length last year. We brought strong evidence 
to show the States do the very same thing, particularly in my State of 
Wyoming, and they collect the royalties. But they do it much cheaper. 
We need to change that.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend our subcommittee chairman, Sidney 
Yates, for his outstanding work on this bill. With issues ranging from 
natural resource management to the arts, Chairman Yates has applied his 
fair-minded direction to craft a bill that reflects hard choices made 
under tight budgetary constraints. I also want to recognize the 
exceptionally fine work of Ralph Regula as our ranking Republican 
member.
  This bill covers a lot of territory. It will result in the purchase 
and protection of wild lands, investments in energy conservation and 
efficiency research, more responsible land management, and much more. I 
am pleased that the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations bill 
includes several projects important to Colorado.


                      energy conservation programs

  Happily the committee was able to increase funding for the Department 
of Energy's energy conservation programs by $134 million over fiscal 
year 1994. A great deal of this work will be carried out at the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] in Colorado. Money spent on 
energy conservation and efficiency research is an investment in our 
future. The development of greener and cleaner technologies will help 
us save money, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and improve the 
environment.


                       colorado land acquisition

  The committee included $7.9 million from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for land purchases in Colorado. This will ensure that 
some unique and precious areas of Colorado will be protected and 
preserved in their natural state for all to enjoy.
  The land acquisitions include:
  One and a half million dollars for East Portal tract, a 1,320-acre 
parcel of private land surrounded by the Arapaho-Roosevelt National 
Forest at the East Portal of the Moffat Tunnel. The area is an 
important hiking and skiing destination area in a roadless wilderness 
area.
  Two million dollars for the Wilderness Protection Fund to purchase 
wilderness inholdings--privately-held lands in wilderness areas--in 
Colorado.
  Two million dollars for Sangre/Kit Carson tract in the Rio Grande 
National Forest. This 8,500 acre tract is a well-known mountain 
climbing destination that's adjacent to recently designated wilderness.
  Two million dollars to purchase 2,677 acres of the most spectacular 
scenery along the Unaweep/Tabeguache Scenic and Historic Byway. This 
land is a recreational area that also provides important winter range 
for big game, and peregrine falcon habitat.
  Four hundred thousand dollars for acquisitions for Rocky Mountain 
National Park. Potential sites for acquisition include Circle C Church 
Ranch, a privately held tract that could be included in Rocky Mountain 
National Park, and ``the Wedge'', a private section of land adjoining 
the Kawuneeche Valley in the Arapaho National Forest.


                   fish and wildlife law enforcement

  The committee secured second-year funding for a new Fish and Wildlife 
Service law enforcement program to combat illegal pollution that 
threatens wildlife. This program focuses particularly on unsafe cyanide 
leach mining operations and problems from other oil drilling and 
mining-related toxins.
  The cyanide contamination from the Summitville mine was an ecological 
disaster that will end up costing taxpayers tens of millions of 
dollars. Beefing up law enforcement capabilities at Fish and Wildlife 
will help prevent future Summitvilles. The funds will be used to hire 
additional law enforcement agents for the Rocky Mountain area and to 
monitor, educate, and provide enforcement against the illegal use of a 
variety of contaminants that are killing migratory birds, eagles and 
endangered species.


                      Endangered Species Recovery

  The bill includes $1.3 million in funds for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's endangered species recovery programs for the Platte River and 
Colorado River basins. Of that, $500,000 will go for the Platte River 
Recovery Plan. This multi-State effort spearheaded by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service seeks to resolve conflicts between water development 
and fish and wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service will also receive 
$624,000 for the Upper Colorado River endangered fish recovery program, 
and $200,000 for the Upper Colorado River Basin recovery program.


                       Forest Service Management

  Again this year, the committee directs the Forest Service to improve 
its management of the national forests in several respects.
  The committee report on the bill requires the Forest Service to 
report to Congress on the extent of its authority for managing 
wilderness inholdings of subsurface mineral interests. The extent of 
the Forest Service's authority could have implications for wilderness 
lands throughout Colorado and the Nation. Clarification on this point 
is essential.
  The committee also approved a directive that the Forest Service 
``avoid to the greatest extent possible entry into roadless areas'' in 
selecting areas for timber harvests. Once roads are built in previously 
undeveloped areas, they destroy the wilderness value of lands, 
precluding later designation for wilderness protection. This is a 
modest effort to prevent unnecessary destruction of wilderness, and I 
hope the Forest Service will take a strong approach. My preference 
would be simply to eliminate new road construction in inventoried 
roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more.
  Another provision in the committee report urges the Forest Service to 
give priority to completing its inventory of old-growth timber in the 
national forests and to exercise care to avoid including old-growth 
stands in areas put up for new timber sales.
  The committee report also requests that the Forest Service report on 
the results of its inventory of wilderness inholdings, and it directs 
both the Forest Service and BLM to report on the status and funding 
requirements of its wild and scenic river studies and management plans.


                     Arts, Humanities, and Museums

  I am pleased with the committee's support for funding the National 
Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities 
[NEH], and the Institute for Museum Sciences [IMS], which meets and, in 
the case of NEA exceeds, the administration's request. The arts and 
humanities are the exposition of the heart, soul, and mind of this 
society and of our wonderful mixture of different cultures. The modest 
expenditures we make on the two endowments help to bridge the Nation's 
diversity and to identify shared values. NEA and NEH have made the arts 
and humanities more accessible to the American public, and they deserve 
our support.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for 
provisions of the fiscal year 1995 Interior appropriations report that 
are intended to strengthen our international efforts to protect 
endangered species. The illegal trade in endangered species is 
increasingly threatening tigers, rhinos, and other species, 
particularly in Asia. This initiative, which I offered in the 
Appropriations Committee, draws public attention to these conditions 
and creates a voluntary donation program associated with the endangered 
species exhibits at the National Zoo in Washington, DC. The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the Smithsonian Institution would 
jointly sponsor this program
  The goal of the donation program is to supplement funding for USFWS 
education and law enforcement programs that combat poaching and trading 
of endangered species. The increasing demand for tiger and rhino parts 
to produce ``tradtiional'' medicines has placed terrific pressure on 
these species. Without improved efforts to protect them, tigers and 
rhinos will be faced with certain extinction.
  With 3 million visitors each year, the National Zoo is a perfect 
environment to educate people about the plight of these endangered 
species. Although I sought an $800,000 appropriation for additional 
Fish and Wildlife Service initiatives to halt illegal poaching and 
trading, budget constraints have prevented a direct appropriation for 
these efforts. As an alternative, this voluntary donation program will 
give zoo visitors an immediate avenue to help those species most at-
risk. I believe zoo-goers will give graciously when they learn of the 
perilous circumstances of many wild animal populations.
  If we are unable to halt illegal hunting and trade of these noble 
animals, they face ultimate extinction. Now is the time to act. I urge 
everyone who visits the zoo, young and old, to help save these species 
for future generations.
  I thank the chairman of the House Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee for his support for this initiative.
  I would also like to include the March 28, 1994 Time magazine article 
``Tigers on the Brink'' in the Record to further illustrate the urgent 
need for this effort.

                          Tigers on the Brink

                           (By Eugene Linden)

       The great beast seems to materialize out of the dusk--a 
     striped vision of might and mystery. Emerging from a thicket 
     in southern India's Nagarahole National Park, the Bengal 
     tigress is hungry and ready to begin another night's hunt. To 
     nourish her 500-lb. body, she must kill a sambar deer, a boar 
     or some other big animal every week of her adult life. 
     Fortunately for her, Nature has given tigers the prowess to 
     prey upon creatures far larger than the cats are. Her massive 
     shoulders and forelimbs can grip and bring down a gaur, a 
     wild, oxlike animal that may weigh more than a ton. Her 
     powerful jaws and daggerlike teeth can rip the victim's 
     throat or sever its spinal column, making quick work of the 
     kill. But there will be no killing at this moment. After 
     padding along a park road for a mere 100 yds., the tigress 
     abruptly melts into the brush--here one instant, gone the 
     next. Watching her disappear, Indian biologist Ullas Karanth 
     of New York's Wildlife Conservation Society, breaks into a 
     knowing smile. ``When you see a tiger,'' he muses, ``it is 
     always like a dream.''
       All too soon, dreams may be the only place where tigers 
     roam freely. Already the Nagarahole tigress is not free. If 
     she hunts during the day, she may run into a carload of 
     tourists, cameras clicking. At night, it may be poachers, 
     guns blazing. Once the rulers of their forest home, she and 
     the park's 50 other tigers are now prisoners of human 
     intruders. More than 6,000 Indians live inside the 250-sq.-
     mi. refuge. And crowning the borders are 250 villages teeming 
     with tens of thousands more people who covet not only the 
     animals that the cats need for food but also the tigers. 
     Their pelts and body parts fetch princely prices on the black 
     market. Were it not for the 250 guards on patrol to protect 
     Nagarahole's tigers, none of them would survive.
       Sadly, this precarious life is as good as it gets for 
     tigers today. Outside protected areas, Asia's giant cats are 
     a vanishing breed, disappearing faster than any other large 
     mammal with the possible exception of the rhinoceros. Even 
     inside the parks, the tigers are succumbing to poaching and 
     the relentless pressure of human population growth. No more 
     than 5,000 to 7,500 of the majestic carnivores remain on the 
     planet--a population decline of roughly 95% in this century. 
     Unless something dramatic is done to reverse the trend, 
     tigers will be seen only in captivity, prowling in zoos or 
     performing in circuses. The wild tigers of old will be 
     gone forever, their glory surviving merely in storybooks, 
     on film--and in dreams.
       Preventing such a tragedy is supposed to be the main goal 
     of the governing body of CITES, the Convention on 
     International Trade in Endangered Species, which is meeting 
     in Geneva this week. These biannual sessions usually come and 
     go without attracting much attention, but the plight of the 
     tiger has put a spotlight on the delegates this time around. 
     Last September CITES warned China and Taiwan, two countries 
     where the illicit trade in tiger and rhino parts is 
     prevalent, to take steps to shut down their black markets or 
     face possible trade sanctions. Both nations claim to have 
     curbed the illegal commerce, but environmentalists have 
     gathered evidence to the contrary. Now everyone who is 
     worried about wildlife focuses on one question: Will the 
     nations of CITES follow through on their threat against China 
     and Taiwan?
       Whatever the outcome, it may be too late to save the 
     tigers. They once rambled across most of Asia, from Siberia 
     in the north to Indonesia in the south to Turkey in the west. 
     Now they are confined to small, shrinking pockets in their 
     forest habitat. The Caspian subspecies became extinct more 
     than a decade ago. So did the Balinese and Javan cats. The 
     survivors are impossible to count with any precision, but 
     fewer than 650 Sumatran tigers remain and maybe 200 of 
     Siberia's Amur, the world's largest cat. China has a few 
     dozen left, and these isolated individuals will soon die out.
       India, with an estimated 60% of the world's tigers, perhaps 
     as many as 3,750, is determined to protect them. But the 
     country's ambitious system of 21 reserves has proved 
     increasingly susceptible to human predators. Over the past 
     five years, the park's tiger populations have dropped 35% on 
     average. In one notorious killing spree between 1989 and 
     1992, Ranthambhore National Park in Rajasthan lost 18 tigers 
     to poachers, even though 60 guards were patrolling the 
     forest.
       Ironically, what makes the tiger so vulnerable to humans is 
     its unshakable grip on the human imagination. For 
     millenniums, tigers have prowled the minds of mankind as 
     surely as they have trod the steppes and forests of Asia. On 
     the banks of Amur River in Russia, archaeologists 
     discovered 6,000-year-old depictions of tigers carved by 
     the Goldis people, who revered the tiger as an ancestor 
     and as god of the wild regions. In Hindu mythology the 
     goddess Durga rides the tiger. And Chang Tao-ling, a 
     patriarch of the Chinese philosophy of Taoism, also mounts 
     a big cat in his quest to fight evil and seek the essence 
     of life. In the English-speaking world nearly every 
     schoolchild who has ever studied poetry is familiar with 
     William Blake's attempt to frame with words the tiger's 
     ``fearful symmetry.'' India's Valmik Thapar, a student of 
     tiger lore, say British and Dutch colonists sometimes 
     killed the beasts in Indonesia and China as a way of 
     asserting their supremacy over local deities.
       Now more than ever the tiger's mystique is its ticket to 
     the boneyard. If Asian cultures no longer revere the tiger as 
     a god, many still believe that the animal is the source of 
     healing power. Shamans and practitioners of traditional 
     medicine, especially the Chinese, value almost every part of 
     the cat. They believe that tiger-bone potions cure rheumatism 
     and enhance longevity. Whiskers are thought to contain potent 
     poisons or provide strength; pills made from the eyes 
     purportedly calm convulsions. Affluent Taiwanese with 
     flagging libidos pay as much as $320 for a bowl of tiger-
     penis soup, thinking the soup will make them like tigers, 
     which can copulate several times an hour when females are in 
     heat.
       A beautiful tiger skin may bring its seller as much as 
     $15,000, but the bones and other body parts generate even 
     more money, and they are much easier to smuggle and peddle. 
     As incomes rise in Asia, people can afford to pay tens or 
     hundreds of dollars for a dose of tiger-based medicine. And 
     as the destruction of tigers decreases supply, the price of 
     their parts rises further, creating ever greater incentive 
     for poachers to kill the remaining animals.
       The forces driving the black market are so strong that 
     nothing--not public opinion, not political pressure, not the 
     power of police--has halted the tiger's slide toward 
     extinction. Can international trade sanctions against Asian 
     nations succeed where all else has failed? There is no 
     guarantee. The tiger's plight reveals the limits of 
     conservation efforts and raises disturbing questions about 
     humanity's ability to share the planet with other animals. 
     Says Elinor Constable, an Assistant Secretary of State who 
     leads U.S. diplomatic efforts to help the tiger: ``If the 
     concerted efforts of the world cannot save the tiger, what 
     will that say about our ability to deal with more complex 
     environmental problems?''
       Only a few years ago, the tiger was considered a 
     conservation success story. Centuries of legal tiger hunting 
     and forest destruction had raised the specter of extinction, 
     but in 1972 governments rallied to rescue the cats. Taking up 
     the issue as a personal cause, Indian Prime Minister Indira 
     Gandhi launched Project Tiger, which established the 
     country's network of reserves. Western nations joined with 
     several Asian countries to ban hunting and the trade in 
     skins. By 1980 populations on the subcontinent had recovered 
     to the point where B.R. Koppikar, then director of Project 
     Tiger, could boast to the New York Times, ``You can say that 
     there is now no danger of extinction of the tiger in India.
       The conservation community so desperately wanted to believe 
     in the success story that it ignored signs that all was not 
     well. No government program could stop encroachment on tiger 
     habitat as human numbers kept increasing; India alone has 
     grown by 300 million people since the last tiger crisis. 
     Moreover, many of the animals counted in Indian censuses 
     turned out to exist only in the imaginations of bureaucrats 
     who wanted to show their bosses that they were doing a good 
     job of saving the tiger. Most significant, the tiger's 
     defenders failed to pay enough attention to the growing 
     market for its parts.
       The market was always there, but in the 1980s it posed 
     little threat to most tiger populations. In previous years 
     China had slaughtered thousands of its tigers, claiming the 
     animal was a pest that endangered humans. The massacre 
     created a temporary glut of tiger bone--more than enough to 
     satisfy the traditional medicine market. Looking back on what 
     happened next, Peter Jackson, chairman of the cat-specialist 
     group at iucn, the International Union for the Conservation 
     of Nature, in Geneva, says ruefully, ``We should have seen 
     this coming.'' Only in the late 1980s, he notes, after the 
     Chinese had exhausted their bone stockpiles, did 
     conservationists begin to notice unusual trends in poaching.
       Brijendra Singh, a member of India's Tiger Crisis 
     Committee, recalls hearing the first reports in 1986 of 
     poachers being apprehended with bags of tiger bones. 
     Intrigued, Singh and other officials at Corbett National 
     Park set out to exhume tiger carcasses that had been 
     buried in previous years. The workers discovered that the 
     skeletons had already been removed. Soon reports of 
     poaching for tiger bones began to flood in from all over 
     India.
       Only last year, however, did officials realize the scale of 
     the slaughter. A sting operation organized by TRAFFIC, an 
     organization that monitors the wildlife trade for the World 
     Wildlife Fund, uncovered a vast poaching network. In one bust 
     last August, New Delhi police found 850 lbs. of tiger bone 
     (equivalent to 42 tigers) and eight pelts. Sansar Chand, a 
     dealer who surrendered last December, has nearly two dozen 
     wildlife cases pending against him. Given the ease with which 
     traffickers can manipulate India's glacial judicial system--
     where cases can drag on for decades--arrest is often only an 
     inconvenience.
       For all the tiger's power, it can be an easy animal to 
     kill, Many cats in the Ranthambhore park have died from 
     poison that villagers sprinkled on animals that the tigers 
     had killed and temporarily left on the ground. Other cats 
     have fallen victim to the hunters of the Mogiya tribes, who 
     pack high-powered rifles and shotguns. Middlemen pay them 
     $100 to $300 per animals (a huge amount in an area where an 
     average wage is $1 a day).
       Once killed, many tigers join the corpses of leopards, 
     jackals and other animals in a grotesque procession by cart 
     and truck that leads ultimately to a series of tenements 
     along a narrow, filthy alley in Delhi's Sadar Bazaar. In one 
     cluster of squalid apartments, the TRAFFIC sting operation 
     discovered more than a dozen families engaged in the illicit 
     wildlife trade. There the once magnificent animals are 
     skinned, their prized parts dried and packaged, and their 
     bones cleaned and bleached. The skins travel west, often 
     ending up in the homes of wealthy Arabs, while the bones make 
     their way to the east, frequently on the backs of Tibetans 
     who ferry the contraband across mountainous sparsely 
     populated terrain to the Chinese border.
       Indian conservationists have watched with dismay as this 
     new round of poaching unravels the work of decades Sanjoy 
     Debroy, a career wildlife officer, says that when he revisits 
     a tiger reserve in Assam that he directed for a dozen years, 
     the demoralized staff members can't talk to him without 
     weeping. Their tigers are hunted by members of the Boro 
     tribe, who are staging a rebellion against the government. 
     They trade tiger parts for guns and ammunition to carry on 
     their insurgency. The park had an estimated 90 tigers, but 
     Debroy has heard that between 30 and 40 were killed in 
     just four months. ``I thought I had done something to 
     restore the tiger,'' says Debroy, ``but now I feel 
     miserable as I watch my life's work go down the drain.''
       As bad as the situation is in India, it is far worse in 
     eastern Russia's taiga. The Amur tiger that inhabits this 
     800-mile-long stretch of evergreen forest nearly disappeared 
     once before--during the 1930s, when communist big shots would 
     bag eight or 10 of the cats during a single hunt. But the 
     state exercised iron control over the region, and when it 
     decided to protect the tigers, their population recovered 
     from roughly 30 to as many as 400 during the mid-1980s. 
     Unfortunately for the Amur, tiger-bone prices began surging 
     in the early 1990s, just when the fall of the Soviet Union 
     led to a breakdown of law and order in the taiga.
       The subsequent economic chaos has left the local wildlife 
     departments broke and officials susceptible to bribes. Amid 
     this collapse of enforcement, ``the poacher owns the taiga,'' 
     says Steven Galster, who monitors conservation efforts from 
     Vladivostok for Britain's Tiger Trust. Not content with 
     staking out areas frequented by the cats, some hunters stalk 
     the Amur tiger on horseback with the help of dogs.
       The losses have been staggering. Last winter, Russian 
     officials estimated that between 80 and 96 tigers were 
     killed, and the poaching continues unabated this year. A new 
     study of tiger-population dynamics led by biologist John 
     Kenney of the University of Minnesota suggests that even 
     moderate poaching makes extinction a virtual certainty once a 
     tiger census drops below 120. Unless the Russian government 
     controls hunting, the Amur tiger will cross that threshold 
     within two or three years.
       Market demand drives poaching, and activists such as Sam 
     LaBudde of the Earth Island Institute in San Francisco argue 
     that the current crisis exposes the shortcomings of old-line 
     conservation efforts. ``The failure to address market demand 
     means that tens of millions of dollars invested in past 
     efforts to save the tiger have amounted to little more than a 
     colossal subsidy for the Chinese traditional-medicine 
     market,'' says LaBudde. Others point out that environmental 
     groups have in fact achieved notable successes by attacking 
     demand. Pressure on the fashion industry in the West, for 
     instance, helped halt precipitous declines in spotted-cat 
     populations during the 1970s, and international condemnation 
     of ivory-consuming nations has granted the elephant at least 
     a temporary reprieve.
       Demand for tiger bone, however, originates in China, Korea 
     and Taiwan, largely beyond the reach of Western 
     publicity campaigns. Moreover, tiger-bone remedies are so 
     ingrained in these cultures that it is not certain their 
     governments could control the trade in tiger parts. 
     Whether they have the will to try is even more open to 
     question. All three countries have a well-documented 
     history of paying lip service to agreements protecting 
     endangered species while continuing to do business as 
     usual.
       Korea openly imported tiger parts until July 1993, and its 
     customs statistics offer rare insight into the size of the 
     market. An analysis by Traffic International revealed that 
     Korea was importing from 52 to 96 dead tigers a year between 
     1988 and 1992, even as cat populations were plunging around 
     the world. Imports rose in 1990 and 1991, suggesting that 
     bone dealers were stockpiling parts in anticipation of the 
     trade being shut down. Indeed, fearful of international 
     sanctions, Korea finally joined Cites last year and banned 
     tiger imports. But the country has failed to enforce new laws 
     designed to halt the internal trade in tiger parts.
       Taiwan and China have ostensibly accepted Cites' rules for 
     years, but that hasn't helped the tiger. China halted the 
     state-sponsored production of tiger-bone remedies only in 
     mid-1993. Taiwan has announced a series of measures over the 
     past 15 years banning the use of tiger bone and other 
     products from endangered species, but the actions were 
     annoyances to the dealers rather than serious blows to their 
     business.
       In 1989 the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency 
     called on nations to impose sanctions against Taiwan for 
     failing to halt illicit trade in endangered species. EIA 
     investigators offered evidence of the open sale of tiger 
     parts, including skins, and a host of other banned animal 
     products. Since then, illegal wares have disappeared from 
     display shelves, but subsequent investigations by several 
     environmental groups suggest that potions made from tigers, 
     rhinos and other endangered species are still readily 
     available. As recently as this February, an undercover probe 
     sponsored by Earth Trust in four Taiwanese cities found that 
     13 of 21 pharmacies visited offered tiger-bone medicines.
       Renowned biologist George Schaller of New York's Wildlife 
     Conservation Society warns that if the tiger-bone trade is 
     allowed to continue, it will threaten all large cats. 
     Traditional medicine makers also use bones from other 
     endangered felines, such as the snow leopard and golden cat. 
     ``If the price keeps going up, the search for bone will start 
     affecting cats in Africa,'' says Schaller.
       The situation is almost a replay of the battle between 
     environmentalists and Asian nations over the ivory trade, 
     which led to rampant poaching of African elephants during the 
     late 1980s. Fearful that the promises made about tiger 
     parts were as empty as the one made about ivory, 86 
     organizations, led by the Earth Island Institute (EIA) and 
     Britain's Tiger Trust, took their case against China and 
     Taiwan to the government committee of CITES in March 1993. 
     The committee gave the two countries six months to start 
     cracking down on the trade in tiger parts and rhino horn. 
     The deadline had little effect: at a meeting in Brussels 
     last September, CITES declared the measures taken by China 
     and Taiwan to be inadequate and set the stage for trade 
     sanctions to be imposed.
       Alarmed at that prospect, the two offending nations have 
     since announced still more steps to curb the tiger-part 
     trade, but they have yet to satisfy their critics. Chinese 
     authorities say that they have assigned 40,000 people to 
     enforce laws aimed at the black market and that more than 
     1,000 lbs. of confiscated tiger bone have been burned. 
     Conservationists don't trust either claim. China has 
     considered raising tigers in captivity to supply the 
     traditional-medicine market, but that may only legitimize a 
     nasty business. Poachers could pass off the tigers they kill 
     as ``captive bred.''
       The Taiwanese government has trumpeted the creation of a 
     task force on endangered species within the national police. 
     It remains unclear, however, whether the unit has been 
     staffed or even has a budget. Taiwan officials have variously 
     said the unit will have 300, 45 and six officers. So far, the 
     Taiwanese have not made a single arrest, and response to a 
     government call for people to come forward and register tiger 
     parts and rhino horn has been embarrassingly small. Allan 
     Thorton of the EIA says past efforts to enforce the law 
     consisted of uniformed police asking pharmacies whether they 
     had tiger bone--something like having cops ask drug dealers 
     whether they are carrying heroin.
       Taiwan defends itself vigorously. Ling Shiang-nung, vice 
     chairman of the Council of Agriculture, questions both the 
     sincerity and accuracy of international environmental groups 
     that argue that tiger parts are still widely available. ``We 
     feel so disappointed that we are doing so much and getting so 
     little credit for it,'' says Ling. Ginette Henley of traffic 
     usa admits that the Taiwanese have taken steps but fears that 
     Taiwan and China will do just enough to stave off sanctions 
     and then allow the markets to resume business.
       The issue will come to a head at this week's CITES meeting 
     in Geneva, as delegates debate whether enough has been 
     done in recent months to slow the tiger trade. Since CITES 
     has no enforcement powers of its own, only individual 
     member nations can make the decision to impose trade 
     sanctions. A key player to watch is the U.S., largely 
     because of the strong stand taken by Interior Secretary 
     Bruce Babbitt. An ardent environmentalist, he attended the 
     Brussels meeting in September and played a major role in 
     the effort to put pressure on China and Taiwan.
       In particular, Babbitt announced a determination by the 
     Clinton Administration that these countries were in violation 
     of the so-called Pelly amendment, a once obscure section of 
     the U.S. Fishermen's Protective Act that has the potential to 
     become the world's most powerful piece of environmental 
     legislation. It authorizes the use of trade sanctions against 
     nations whose actions hurt endangered species. Just the 
     threat of Pelly penalties a few years ago caused Japan to 
     reduce the use of drift nets by its fishing boats and 
     prompted Korea to join CITES.
       This time the Clinton Administration in effect told China 
     and Taiwan to clean up their act or face sanctions, and a 
     March deadline was set. On the eve of the Geneva sessions, 
     Babbitt remained firm. ``All the CITES members will be taking 
     signals from this meeting,'' said the Interior Secretary. 
     ``There may not be another chance to save the tiger.''
       According to Administration sources, the U.S. will 
     encourage delegates to renew their September call to action. 
     This would provide President Clinton with the diplomatic 
     cover for imposing sanctions. Before he takes that step, 
     though, Clinton advisers expect to encounter opposition from 
     within the Administration, as concern for the tiger collides 
     with a host of other issues that entangle the U.S., China and 
     Taiwan.
       For instance, having chosen not to impose sanctions on 
     China for its persistent violations of human rights, ranging 
     from its treatment of Tibet to the torture and imprisonment 
     of political dissidents, the Administration may find it hard 
     to explain why it is acting now because of environmental 
     wrongs. And at a time when the U.S. is trying to lower trade 
     barriers, some members of the Administration argue that 
     punitive sanctions against China or Taiwan will send the 
     wrong message about U.S. commitment to free trade. A State 
     Department official suggests that it's too soon for the 
     U.S. to play its last card. ``Once you impose sanctions,'' 
     he asks, ``what do you do then?''
       Environmentalists respond that if the U.S. fails to act, 
     the tiger will almost surely disappear in the wild. Noting 
     that Taiwan and China have ``been tried and convicted by 
     CITES and the U.S.,'' Earth Island's LaBudde says, ``A 
     judgment of guilty with no penalty imposed hardly represents 
     any deterrent.'' Thornton of the EIA agrees: ``It is time for 
     us to make it plain that we are not going to stand by and 
     watch the last tiger disappear.''
       But the remedy is not that simple. Even if international 
     pressure eliminated poaching, the tiger would still be in 
     trouble. Its habitat is shrinking, and its food supply is 
     dwindling as the territory claimed by humans inexorably 
     expands. Can people be comfortable living in close proximity 
     to hungry predators who on occasion eat humans? Says Geoffrey 
     Ward, author of The Tiger-Wallahs: ``Poaching is murder, but 
     crowding is slow strangulation.''
       Given the pressures on habitat, some zoologists maintain 
     that captive breeding of tigers and their eventual 
     reintroduction into the wild should be pursued as a way to 
     keep the species alive. Schaller and many other 
     conservationists dismiss this approach as both inefficient 
     and unrealistic. Tigers learn from their mothers subtle 
     details about hunting that would be difficult for human 
     mentors to teach. And once tigers have disappeared from an 
     area, Schaller notes, it becomes extremely difficult to 
     convince villagers that they should welcome the animals back. 
     ``It would cost millions to breed and reintroduce tigers,'' 
     says the biologist. ``If Asian nations want tigers, they can 
     have them far more cheaply by protecting the remaining wild 
     tigers.''
       Oddly, the Siberian tiger--a critically endangered 
     subspecies--may have the best chance of survival, but only if 
     poaching is controlled. ``The Amur tiger has 800 miles of 
     unbroken habitat to move through,'' says Howard Quigley, who 
     is co-director of the Siberian Tiger Project, a Russian-
     American conservation effort, ``but unless poaching is 
     stopped, there will be no tigers to move through it.'' The 
     Tiger Trust and the World Wildlife Fund offered vehicles, 
     training and supplemental pay for Russian wildlife rangers, 
     but the killing of tigers continued as those proposals 
     languished for months on the desks of bureaucrats in Moscow. 
     Only last week did the first, unarmed patrol go out.
       For the majority of tigers, India is where the battle for 
     survival will be won or lost. It is not the best place to 
     make a stand, given the extreme pressures of human population 
     growth. Says Kamal Nath, the country's Environment Minister: 
     ``The threat to the tiger has never been so strong or so 
     real.'' On the other hand, India has invested $30 million 
     during the 20 years of Project Tiger and has a culture in 
     which many people still genuinely respect nature. Here is 
     where the world will see if humans and tigers can live 
     side by side.
       The two species have coexisted for hundreds of thousands of 
     years. Up until now, the big cat has always been 
     extraordinarily adaptable and resilient. ``All a tiger 
     needs,'' says Schaller, ``is a little bit of cover, some 
     water and some prey.'' But the tiger has finally run afoul of 
     mankind, an evolutionary classmate that has proved to be even 
     more resourceful killer. ``What will it say about the human 
     race if we let the tiger go extinct?'' asks TRAFFIC's Ashok 
     Kumar. ``What can we save? Can we save ourselves?''
                                  ____


              A Shotgun, a Promise of $5 and a Skinned Cat

       The tiger hunter of yore was a maharajah or British 
     aristocrat who would take potshots at roaring beasts while 
     perched atop an elephant. Celebrated in prints and woodcuts, 
     this blood sport looked manly but carried with it about as 
     much risk as watching a professional football game from a 
     skybox, since the cats wouldn't attack an elephant. Today the 
     typical tiger killer is more like an Indian man named Raju: a 
     diminutive, ragged farmer who does not even own a gun. 
     Nonetheless, as a member of the Jenu Kuruba tribe, Raju knows 
     how to hunt the big cats. In 1993 he downed a tiger in 
     Nagarahole ark with a borrowed shotgun.
       The gun's owner, a local landlord named Mahadeswara, had 
     hired Raju to poach deer and other game favored in local 
     feasts. Gun owners often hire tribesmen as shooters because 
     of their knowledge of the forest. One evening last spring, 
     Raju, the landlord and two other poachers hid near a water 
     hole. At dusk a tiger approached within a few yards. Raju 
     claims he was reluctant to shoot it, but the landlord 
     insisted. He promised, but never delivered, payment of 110 
     lbs. of millet--worth $5.
       Using a shotgun shell loaded with six slugs, Raju fired. So 
     well hidden were the hunters, Raju says, that he had no fear 
     of the tiger's turning on them if the shot missed. It did 
     not; it hit the animal under its shoulder. Mortally wounded, 
     the great cat tried to run but, after 20 yds., collapsed. The 
     poachers skinned it on the spot.
       As news of the tiger kill spread through nearby villages, 
     informants quickly led police to Raju. Mahadeswara hid but 
     was arrested two months later. While Indian justice 
     guarantees neither swift nor sure punishment, tiger 
     specialist Ullas Karanth believes the shame and inconvenience 
     of interminable court proceedings deter villagers, who lack 
     the resources of wildlife traders. Raju says he regrets what 
     he did and hopes to assist with antipoaching patrols.
       Unfortunately, tens of thousands of people like Raju live 
     within five miles of the park and its riches. Residing in a 
     relatively prosperous agricultural region, Raju is far better 
     off than India's desperate poor. Even so, temptation led him 
     to supplement his income by poaching other animals for years 
     before he shot the tiger. Says C. Srinivasan, Nagarahole's 
     deputy wildlife warden: ``It's like trench warfare. We can 
     never relax.''
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4602 contains funding for the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation [PADC], which is not 
authorized in fiscal year 1995 and at the appropriate point I will 
offer a point of order to strike it from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has repeatedly requested that PADC submit a 
plan for a successor entity, but PADC has never submitted one. The PADC 
Organic Act contains a provision calling for the ultimate sunsetting of 
PADC, and directs the corporation to present a plan for a successor 
entity to carry out ongoing responsibilities.
  In 1991, PADC was authorized for only 1 year, instead of the 3 
requested, and the Natural Resources Committee stated in its report 
that the reason for this was to provide the committee with the chance 
to review a successor entity plan in the next year.
  The next year, PADC once again requested a 3-year extension of its 
authorization, but did not provide the requested successor plan. 
Congress approved an additional 2-year authorization, noting that the 
administration needed more time to prepare the successor entity plan.
  That was almost exactly 2 years ago. Now, PADC is once again 
requesting a reauthorization for 3 years, but does not have an 
authorizing proposal and plan for a successor entity ready to present 
to Congress. PADC states that OMB has been reviewing the proposal for 
over a year and is not able to share with Congress the details of that 
proposal. This explanation is ludicrous and not responsible or 
responsive to the law, policy or the good faith effort of the Natural 
Resources Committee and Congress. Three years and no plan; the Congress 
should recognize foot dragging when it occurs.
  Furthermore, PADC has already completed all the development work that 
it can realistically complete. All but three parcels identified in the 
master plan are completed. Of these, only one is on Pennsylvania Avenue 
itself. There are no immediate prospects for developing these parcels: 
The one on Pennsylvania Avenue is the one least likely to be developed 
in the near future.
  PADC's work on the new Federal office building at Federal Triangle, 
the International Trade Center, can be absorbed by a successor entity 
and financed by the General Services Administration. There is no reason 
why funds from the natural resources area of the budget should go 
toward the construction of a large new Federal office complex, when 
that is the responsibility of the General Services Administration.
  Because of PADC's lack of authorization, I will be raising a point of 
order on the Interior appropriation bill. In addition, I plan to 
introduce soon legislation to create a successor entity and dissolve 
the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4602, which 
provides appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related 
agencies.
  This legislation provides important funding for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institute, and 
other programs that are necessary to conserving and fostering our 
natural and cultural resources.
  In particular, the funding that the bill provides to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service will have a special impact in the State of New 
Jersey. This money is crucial to New Jersey's efforts to protect and 
preserve important habitat in one of the fastest growing States in the 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that this legislation provides 
funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service for a very significant land 
acquisition project in New Jersey at the Cape May National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge was officially established in 
May of 1989 and covers 15,500 acres of coastal and freshwater wetlands 
in two sections, the Delaware Bay division and the Great Cedar Swamp. 
Together these divisions encompass some 15,500 acres.
  H.R. 4602 contains $1 million that will enable the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to continue acquisition at the Cape May refuge. These funds 
will help the Service follow through with some of the options and 
negotiations now in progress, and keep alive the movement to protect 
south Jersey's natural resources. The wetlands included in the refuge 
are vitally important to Cape May County for Aquifer recharge, flood 
storage, and shore stabilization.
  There is a compelling need to preserve this land that is situated so 
precariously in the Midst of one of the most heavily developed States 
in the Union. The Cape May National Wildlife Refuge is an essential 
element in our national program to protect and preserve our natural 
resources.
  Cape May's wetlands are key to the survival of record-breaking 
concentrations of migrating and wintering shorebirds, raptors, 
waterfowl, gamebirds and songbirds. The Delaware Bay is the second 
largest resting area for shorebirds in the world, including the entire 
North American population of red knots, and over 50 percent of the 
North American ruddy turnstones and sanderlings.
  The Cape May Peninsula is host to the second largest number of 
migratory birds of prey in the Union, including northern harrier, 
osprey, peregrine falcon, merlin, American Kestrel, sharp-shinned, 
Cooper's, and red-shouldered hawk, in addition to hundreds of American 
bald eagles each year. Additionally, some 34 percent of the Atlantic 
flyway's black duck population, unusual concentrations of gamebirds, 
and overwhelming numbers of songbirds overwinter or temporarily rest 
from their migration in the Cape May wetlands.
  These wetlands, along with adjacent uplands, also host an unusually 
high number of globally threatened and endangered plant and animal 
species, including one listed and two candidates for listing on the 
Federal endangered species list. Finally, the Delaware Bay's marshes 
comprise one of the largest remaining wetland complexes on the Atlantic 
coast. Indeed, the greatest concern for all these species is loss of 
habitat.
  In addition to the importance of the Cape May Peninsula for its 
diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Its wetlands serve a 
variety of hydrological functions such as flood storage, groundwater 
discharge and recharge, water quality protection, and shoreline 
stabilization.
  The funding for the Cape May refuge, as well and the $355,000 
including for protection of the Delaware Bay estuary, will provide a 
needed boost to critical conservation efforts in my district.
  I would like to think the chairman and ranking Republican of the 
Appropriations Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the 
Interior Subcommittee. I would especially like to praise the fine work 
of Chairman Yates, as well as Mr. Regula, the ranking Republican member 
of that panel. They have, as usual, done an excellent job in crafting 
this bill as a whole. Chairman Yates and Mr. Regula have been 
particularly sensitive to the need to protect natural resources in the 
face of increasing developmental pressures in New Jersey--the most 
urbanized and densely populated State in the Nation, and I appreciate 
their support.
  Mr. Chairman, despite these austere times and the necessary budget 
cuts, I believe that this bill reflects Congress' commitment to the 
preservation and protection of our natural and cultural resources. This 
is a rational bill and I urge my colleagues' support for its passage.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4602, 
Interior appropriations for fiscal year 1995. I believe Chairman Yates 
and all the members of the subcommittee deserve credit for their work 
on this legislation, and moving it so expeditiously in the House. It 
contains funding for a number of vital programs in our Nation.
  I want to call attention to a provision in this bill regarding 
diabetes. Diabetes is a serious health problem in America, afflicting 
nearly 14 million Americans. Diabetes has serious, sometimes life 
threatening complications such as lower extremity amputations, kidney 
and heart disease, blindness, and nerve damage. The sad truth is that a 
majority of these complications are completely avoidable with currently 
available medical care. I was pleased last year to support expansion of 
the Centers for Disease Control's Office of Diabetes Translation, an 
increase of $10 million, to help address this situation. I am 
supportive of a similar increase this year.
  Today, the bill before us gives a significant boost to problems we 
face with diabetes and native Americans. The situation with diabetes is 
particularly acute for our Nation's native American population. 
Diabetes is one of the leading causes of sickness and death among 
native Americans, and the rate of diabetes mortality in native 
Americans is nearly 300 percent higher than the U.S. average. In fact, 
some tribes have diabetes rates near 35 percent.
  Currently, the Indian Health Service [IHS] Diabetes Program provides 
comprehensive diabetes prevention and control services to native 
Americans communities. Reservation-based interventions, which detect 
diabetes-related complications before they become life-threatening, are 
a primary component of the program. Reaching out with prevention and 
control strategies to prevent costly complications is not only the 
humane thing to do, it saves millions of health care dollars in the 
long-run.
  The IHS Diabetes Program, while authorized at level of $65 million, 
operated last year on a funding level of $7 million. Currently, only 17 
of the 140 authorized reservation-based model diabetes programs have 
the necessary funds to operate. Despite increasing needs, this cost-
effective program has not received an increase in funding for the last 
3 years.
  Earlier this year, I authored a letter--signed by 20 of my colleagues 
here in the House--requesting an increase in funding for the IHS 
Diabetes Program. I am pleased to say that H.R. 4506 includes an 
increase of $1.5 million for the IHS Diabetes Program. These funds will 
allow the IHS to set up three additional programs on reservations in 
America to help diagnose and control diabetes, preventing costly 
complications and human suffering. I realize that this action comes at 
a time when our resources are stretched to the limit, and it is 
gratifying to know that the subcommittee felt that this increase was a 
wise investment in the health of our native Americans.
  I thank Chairman Yates and the entire subcommittee for their 
commitment to improving the quality of life for all Americans, and 
their hard work on this important legislation. I urge all my colleagues 
to support H.R. 4602.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4602, the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and 
Related Agencies.
  The chairman and ranking Republican on the subcommittee Sid Yates and 
Ralph Regula, are to be commended for putting together a fair and 
responsible bill under very tight spending caps.
  It is no easy assignment to meet our deficit-cutting obligations at a 
time when the need for the important programs financed by the bill is 
greater than ever. Our duty to provide for the responsible stewardship 
of our public lands has not been diminished as the need to cut the 
deficit grows.
  The subcommittee skillfully managed this delicate balancing act 
between the need to cut spending and the need to adequately provide for 
our natural resource agencies. H.R. 4602 is under the 602-B allocation 
in budget authority and outlays. The bill comes in at $194.5 million 
under the fiscal year 1994 level and $230.4 million under the 
President's request. At the same time, H.R. 4602 meets our commitment 
to the environment, reflects the priorities of the House, and responds 
to the changing needs in this country.
  The bill provides $13.19 billion in budget authority to fund the 
Department of Interior, the Forest Service, Indian education and 
health, conservation and research programs of the Energy Department, 
and a number of arts and cultural programs.
  Given the budget limitations, the committee was still able to fund a 
number of high-level initiatives. The ecological significance of the 
Everglades is recognized with the provision of funds to the National 
Park Service and four other Federal agencies. The bill also provides 
funding for the Northwest forest plan, another multiagency effort led 
by the Forest Service.
  Much-needed increases have also been provided for operations in the 
natural resources agencies funded in the bill. In a matter which has 
been subject to past controversy, the biological survey receives level 
funding of $167.2 million. The committee is sensitive to the concerns 
of private property owners. Bill language was added in full committee 
to prohibit survey personnel from entering private lands without the 
written permission of the owner. The report includes language to ensure 
the objectivity and expertise of volunteers and provides assurances 
that the information the NBS collects on private property is readily 
available to landowners.

  Total spending for Department of Energy functions covered under the 
bill is decreased by $106 million from the fiscal year 1994 level and 
$179 million from the President's proposal. Energy conservation 
received a $134.2 million increase, a 19.4 percent hike from the fiscal 
year 1994 level. The $824.5 million in the bill for conservation, 
however, is $152.2 million, or 15.6 percent, less than the President's 
request. The bill provides $50 million of the $119 million request for 
the climate action plan, which is designed to reduce U.S. emissions of 
greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
  The bill is not without controversy. It contains a 1-year moratorium 
on new mining patents, reduces construction budgets in the Forest, 
National Park and Fish and Wildlife Services, cuts the timber sales 
program, scales back many of the President's spending initiatives, and 
continues the moratorium on new oil and natural gas leases along many 
of the Nation's coasts.
  Members may disagree on some of the specifics of this legislation, 
but it is, by and large, a fair, responsible, and balanced bill. It is 
a bill that both complies with the spending caps and provides for the 
needs of this Nation. I urge passage of H.R. 4602.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and the ranking member on that 
subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for 
their work on behalf of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. The 
subcommittee allocated the requested $1.4 million for facility design 
for the Winnebago Hospital. Gaining this recommended appropriation has 
been a long and difficult process for the Winnebago Tribe--the Omaha 
Tribe--this Member, both senators from Nebraska and Iowa, and the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Grandy]. We appreciate the assistance and 
personal commitment of Secretary Shalala in supporting this hospital 
project. These funds will allow the much-needed replacement hospital to 
begin to become a reality for my constituents. The Winnebago Hospital 
provides vital health care services to the native American population 
of Nebraska and other native Americans in the greater Sioux City area. 
The current hospital in Winnebago, NE is in dire need of replacement.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member is most pleased that funds were 
appropriated for facility design for the Winnebago Hospital, especially 
considering the tight budget constraints facing the subcommittee this 
year.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4602

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     and performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, $596,349,000, to remain available 
     until expended, including $1,462,000 to be derived from the 
     special receipt account established by section 4 of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That appropriations herein made 
     shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, 
     unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau 
     of Land Management or its contractors; and in addition, 
     $21,650,000 for Mining Law Administration program operations, 
     to remain available until expended, to be reduced by amounts 
     collected by the Bureau of Land Management and credited to 
     this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to 
     result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $596,349,000: Provided further, That in addition to funds 
     otherwise available, not to exceed $5,000,000 from annual 
     mining claim fees shall be credited to this account for the 
     costs of administering the mining claim fee program, and 
     shall remain available until expended.


                            fire protection

       For necessary expenses for fire use and management, and 
     fire preparedness by the Department of the Interior, 
     $114,968,000, to remain available until expended.


         emergency department of the interior firefighting fund

       For emergency rehabilitation, severity presuppression, and 
     wildfire operations of the Department of the Interior, 
     $121,176,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds also are available for repayment of advances 
     to other appropriation accounts from which funds were 
     previously transferred for such purposes: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons 
     hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence 
     and lodging without cost from funds available from this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That only amounts for 
     emergency rehabilitation and wildfire operations that are in 
     excess of the average of such costs for the previous ten 
     years shall be considered ``emergency requirements'' pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For expenses necessary for use by the Department of the 
     Interior and any of its component offices and bureaus for the 
     remedial action, including associated activities, of 
     hazardous waste substances, pollutants, or contaminants 
     pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.), $13,435,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums 
     recovered from or paid by a party in advance of or as 
     reimbursement for remedial action or response activities 
     conducted by the Department pursuant to sections 107 or 
     113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9607 or 
     9613(f)), shall be credited to this account and shall be 
     available without further appropriation and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That such sums 
     recovered from or paid by any party are not limited to 
     monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or other 
     personal or real property, which may be retained, liquidated, 
     or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                        construction and access

       For acquisition of lands and interests therein, and 
     construction of buildings, recreation facilities, roads, 
     trails, and appurtenant facilities, $3,836,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901-07), $104,108,000, of which not to 
     exceed $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 205, 206, and 318(d) of Public Law 94-579 including 
     administrative expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, 
     or interests therein, $17,060,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $100,860,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 per centum of the aggregate of 
     all receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of 
     subsection (b) of title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 
     Stat. 876).


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 per centum of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,350,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under sections 209(b), 304(a), 304(b), 305(a), and 
     504(g) of the Act approved October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), 
     and sections 101 and 203 of Public Law 93-153, to be 
     immediately available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), 
     any moneys that have been or will be received pursuant to 
     that section, whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, 
     or settlement, if not appropriate for refund pursuant to 
     section 305(c) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be 
     available and may be expended under the authority of this or 
     subsequent appropriations Acts by the Secretary to improve, 
     protect, or rehabilitate any public lands administered 
     through the Bureau of Land Management which have been damaged 
     by the action of a resource developer, purchaser, permittee, 
     or any unauthorized person, without regard to whether all 
     moneys collected from each such forfeiture, compromise, or 
     settlement are used on the exact lands damage to which led to 
     the forfeiture, compromise, or settlement: Provided further, 
     That such moneys are in excess of amounts needed to repair 
     damage to the exact land for which collected.


                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing law, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $250,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau of 
     Land Management; miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities authorized or approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on his certificate, 
     not to exceed $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 
     U.S.C. 501, the Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing 
     and partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure 
     printing services from cooperators in connection with 
     jointly-produced publications for which the cooperators share 
     the cost of printing either in cash or in services, and the 
     Bureau determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards.

  Mr. YATES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto terminate no 
later than 4:30 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I find a 
number of Members on our side who have amendments and who want to speak 
on them. Therefore, at this point we could not agree to limiting 
debate. However, I think we could do it on amendment by amendment, that 
as each amendment comes up perhaps we could limit debate on that 
amendment. Some will take more time than others because there is a 
greater amount of controversy.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the title 
be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the balance of title I is as follows:

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For expenses necessary for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, and for the performance of other 
     authorized functions related to such resources; for the 
     general administration of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service; and for maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; and not less 
     than $1,000,000 for high priority projects within the scope 
     of the approved budget which shall be carried out by the 
     Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by the Act of August 
     13, 1970, as amended by Public Law 93-408, $514,650,000, of 
     which $11,732,000 shall be for operation and maintenance of 
     fishery mitigation facilities constructed by the Corps of 
     Engineers under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, 
     authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 
     Stat. 2921), to compensate for loss of fishery resources from 
     water development projects on the Lower Snake River, and 
     which shall remain available until expended; and of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be provided to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation for endangered species activities: 
     Provided, That the amount provided to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation shall be matched by at least an equal 
     amount by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: Provided 
     further, That sums may be made available to the States of 
     Washington, Oregon, and California to conduct monitoring 
     activities related to the President's Forest Plan.


                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $25,264,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601, 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and the Act of July 27, 1990 (Public Law 101-
     337); $6,700,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     any amounts appropriated or credited in fiscal year 1992 and 
     thereafter, may be transferred to any account to carry out 
     the provisions of negotiated legal settlements or other legal 
     actions for restoration activities and to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601, 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and the Act of July 27, 1990 (Public Law 101-
     337) for damage assessment activities: Provided further, That 
     sums provided by any party are not limited to monetary 
     payments and may include stocks, bonds or other personal or 
     real property, which may be retained, liquidated or otherwise 
     disposed of by the Secretary and such sums or properties 
     shall be utilized for the restoration of injured resources, 
     and to conduct new damage assessment activities.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and for activities 
     authorized under Public Law 98-244 to be carried out by the 
     National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $62,300,000, to be 
     derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain 
     available until expended.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended by Public Law 100-478, $9,000,000 for grants to 
     States, to be derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $12,000,000.


                         rewards and operations

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-
     4213, 4221-4225, 4241-4245, and 1538), $1,169,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For deposit to the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation 
     Fund, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     available for carrying out the Partnerships for Wildlife Act 
     only to the extent such funds are matched as provided in 
     section 7105 of said Act.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 127 passenger motor vehicles, of which 106 are 
     for replacement only (including 44 for police-type use); not 
     to exceed $400,000 for payment, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, for information, rewards, or evidence concerning 
     violations of laws administered by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, and miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized or approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on his certificate; 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service; options for the purchase of land 
     at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to 
     such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are 
     consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance 
     and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are utilized pursuant to law in connection with management 
     and investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, 
     That the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may accept 
     donated aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 
     501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and 
     partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing 
     services from cooperators in connection with jointly-produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards.

                       National Biological Survey

                   research, inventories, and surveys

       For authorized expenses necessary for scientific research 
     relating to species biology, population dynamics, and 
     ecosystems; inventory and monitoring activities; technology 
     development and transfer; the operation of Cooperative 
     Research Units; and for the general administration of the 
     National Biological Survey, $167,209,000, of which 
     $166,909,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1996, 
     and of which $300,000 shall remain available until expended 
     for construction: Provided, That none of the funds under this 
     head shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property 
     unless specifically authorized in writing by the property 
     owner.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not to exceed $1,599,000 for the Volunteers-in-
     Parks program, and not less than $1,000,000 for high priority 
     projects within the scope of the approved budget which shall 
     be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized 
     by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by Public Law 93-
     408, $1,083,973,000, without regard to the Act of August 24, 
     1912, as amended (16 U.S.C. 451), of which not to exceed 
     $79,900,000, to remain available until expended is to be 
     derived from the special fee account established pursuant to 
     title V, section 5201, of Public Law 100-203: Provided, That 
     should any increase in fees be enacted after enactment of 
     this Act but prior to September 30, 1995, that would be 
     available for the programs under this heading, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall make available under this heading an 
     amount equal to the amount collected by such fee increase to 
     the resource stewardship program.

                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, environmental compliance 
     and review, international park affairs, statutory or 
     contractual aid for other activities, and grant 
     administration, not otherwise provided for, $36,946,000.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915), as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 470), $41,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Historic Preservation Fund, established by section 108 of 
     that Act, as amended, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1996.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, $171,417,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $4,500,000 shall be 
     paid to the Army Corps of Engineers for modifications 
     authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park 
     Protection and Expansion Act of 1989: Provided further, That 
     $256,000 for rehabilitation of the William McKinley Tomb 
     shall be derived from the Historic Preservation Fund pursuant 
     to 16 U.S.C. 470a.

                     urban park and recreation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2501-2514), $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 1995 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $88,596,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $29,500,000 is for the State assistance 
     program including $3,250,000 to administer the State 
     assistance program: Provided, That of the amounts previously 
     appropriated to the Secretary's contingency fund for grants 
     to States $415,000 shall be available in 1995 for 
     administrative expenses of the State grant program.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 467 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 338 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 360 for police-type use, 12 buses, 
     and 5 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project: Provided further, 
     That the first proviso under this head in Public Law 102-381 
     (106 Stat. 1386) is amended by inserting ``, not to exceed 
     $500,000,'' after the word ``funds''.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, and the mineral and 
     water resources of the United States, its Territories and 
     possessions, and other areas as authorized by law (43 U.S.C. 
     31, 1332 and 1340); classify lands as to their mineral and 
     water resources; give engineering supervision to power 
     permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; $576,775,000, of which $62,130,000 
     shall be available only for cooperation with States or 
     municipalities for water resources investigations: Provided, 
     That no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay more 
     than one-half the cost of any topographic mapping or water 
     resources investigations carried on in cooperation with any 
     State or municipality: Provided further, That of the 
     offsetting collections credited to this account $546,000 are 
     permanently canceled.


                          working capital fund

       The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-512 
     is amended as follows: in the second sentence after ``work,'' 
     insert ``facilities,''; and in the third sentence after 
     ``include'' insert ``laboratory modernization and equipment 
     replacement,'', after ``operations,'' insert 
     ``maintenance,'', and after ``replacement of computer,'' 
     insert ``publications, scientific instrumentation,''.
       The second paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-512 
     is amended as follows: in the second proviso after 
     ``depreciation of equipment'' insert ``and facilities,''.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for purchase of not to exceed 22 
     passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; reimbursement 
     to the General Services Administration for security guard 
     services; contracting for the furnishing of topographic maps 
     and for the making of geophysical or other specialized 
     surveys when it is administratively determined that such 
     procedures are in the public interest; construction and 
     maintenance of necessary buildings and appurtenant 
     facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging stations and 
     observation wells; expenses of the United States National 
     Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation and 
     expenses of persons on the rolls of the United States 
     Geological Survey appointed, as authorized by law, to 
     represent the United States in the negotiation and 
     administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302, et seq.

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $190,206,000, of which not less than 
     $68,434,000 shall be available for royalty management 
     activities; and an amount not to exceed $7,400,000 for the 
     Technical Information Management System of Outer Continental 
     Shelf (OCS) Lands Activity, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for OCS administrative activities performed by 
     the Minerals Management Service over and above the rates in 
     effect on September 30, 1993, and from additional fees for 
     OCS administrative activities established after September 30, 
     1993: Provided, That $1,500,000 for computer acquisitions 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     available for the payment of interest in accordance with 30 
     U.S.C. 1721 (b) and (d): Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses related to 
     promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $15,000 under this head shall be available for refunds 
     of overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in 
     which the Director of the Minerals Management Service 
     concurred with the claimed refund due: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall take appropriate action to collect unpaid 
     and underpaid royalties and late payment interest owed by 
     Federal and Indian mineral lessees and other royalty payors 
     on amounts received in settlement or other resolution of 
     disputes under, and for partial or complete termination of, 
     sales agreements for minerals from Federal and Indian leases: 
     Provided further, That the fifth proviso under the heading 
     ``Leasing and Royalty Management'' for the Minerals 
     Management Service in Public Law 101-512 (104 Stat. 1926) is 
     amended by striking the words ``or payment of civil penalty'' 
     after the words ``result of the forfeiture of a bond or other 
     security'' and striking the words ``or imposition of the 
     civil penalty'' after the words ``rendered necessary by the 
     action or inaction that led to the forfeiture'': Provided 
     further, That where the account title ``Leasing and Royalty 
     Management'' appears in any public law, the words ``Leasing 
     and Royalty Management'' beginning in fiscal year 1995 and 
     thereafter shall be construed to mean ``Royalty and Offshore 
     Minerals Management''.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of title 
     I, section 1016, title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, 
     and title VIII, section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990, $6,452,000, which shall be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                            Bureau of Mines


                           mines and minerals

       For expenses necessary for conducting inquiries, 
     technological investigations, and research concerning the 
     extraction, processing, use, and disposal of mineral 
     substances without objectionable social and environmental 
     costs; to foster and encourage private enterprise in the 
     development of mineral resources and the prevention of waste 
     in the mining, minerals, metal, and mineral reclamation 
     industries; to inquire into the economic conditions affecting 
     those industries; to promote health and safety in mines and 
     the mineral industry through research; and for other related 
     purposes as authorized by law, $152,269,000, of which 
     $99,365,000, shall remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, other contributions, and fees from public and 
     private sources, and to prosecute projects using such 
     contributions and fees in cooperation with other Federal, 
     State or private agencies: Provided, That the Bureau of Mines 
     is authorized, during the current fiscal year, to sell 
     directly or through any Government agency, including 
     corporations, any metal or mineral product that may be 
     manufactured in pilot plants operated by the Bureau of Mines, 
     and the proceeds of such sales shall be covered into the 
     Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary is 
     authorized to convey, without reimbursement, title and all 
     interest of the United States in property and facilities of 
     the United States Bureau of Mines in Juneau, Alaska to the 
     City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska; in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 
     to The University of Alabama; and in Rolla, Missouri, to the 
     University of Missouri-Rolla.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     $110,206,000, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, an 
     additional amount shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, from performance bond 
     forfeitures in fiscal year 1995: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, pursuant to regulations, may utilize directly 
     or through grants to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 
     1995 pursuant to the assessment of civil penalties under 
     section 518 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
     of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to reclaim lands adversely affected 
     by coal mining practices after August 3, 1977, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, appropriations 
     for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
     may provide for the travel and per diem expenses of State and 
     tribal personnel attending Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title 
     IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 
     Public Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not 
     more than 22 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, 
     $172,404,000 to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned 
     Mine Reclamation Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That grants to minimum program States will be 
     $1,000,000 per State in fiscal year 1995: Provided further, 
     That of the funds herein provided up to $18,000,000 may be 
     used for the emergency program authorized by section 410 of 
     Public Law 95-87, as amended, of which no more than 25 per 
     centum shall be used for emergency reclamation projects in 
     any one State and funds for Federally-administered emergency 
     reclamation projects under this proviso shall not exceed 
     $11,000,000: Provided further, That prior year unobligated 
     funds appropriated for the emergency reclamation program 
     shall not be subject to the 25 per centum limitation per 
     State and may be used without fiscal year limitation for 
     Federal emergency projects: Provided further, That pursuant 
     to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the Interior is 
     authorized to utilize up to 20 per centum from the recovery 
     of the delinquent debt owed to the United States Government 
     to pay for contracts to collect these debts.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For operation of Indian programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants including 
     expenses necessary to provide education and welfare services 
     for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with States 
     and other organizations, including payment of care, tuition, 
     assistance, and other expenses of Indians in boarding homes, 
     or institutions, or schools; grants and other assistance to 
     needy Indians; maintenance of law and order; management, 
     development, improvement, and protection of resources and 
     appurtenant facilities under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs, including payment of irrigation 
     assessments and charges; acquisition of water rights; 
     advances for Indian industrial and business enterprises; 
     operation of Indian arts and crafts shops and museums; 
     development of Indian arts and crafts, as authorized by law; 
     for the general administration of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs, including such expenses in field offices; 
     maintaining of Indian reservation roads as defined in section 
     101 of title 23, United States Code; and construction, 
     repair, and improvement of Indian housing, $1,527,786,000, of 
     which $199,000 shall be for cyclical maintenance of tribally 
     owned fish hatcheries and related facilities; and of which 
     $297,000 shall be for a grant to the Close Up Foundation; and 
     of which not to exceed $330,111,000 shall be for school 
     operations costs of Bureau-funded schools and other education 
     programs which shall become available for obligation on July 
     1, 1995, and shall remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1996; and of which not to exceed $72,680,000 
     shall be for higher education scholarships, adult vocational 
     training, and assistance to public schools under the Act of 
     April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended (25 U.S.C. 452 et 
     seq.), which shall remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1996; and of which $75,902,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, including $16,206,000 for trust 
     funds management, $19,083,000 for housing improvement, 
     $30,169,000 for road maintenance, $2,332,000 for attorney 
     fees, $1,983,000 for litigation support, $4,934,000 for self-
     governance tribal compacts, and $1,195,000 for the Navajo-
     Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That payments of funds 
     obligated as grants to schools pursuant to Public Law 100-297 
     shall be made on July 1 and December 1 in lieu of the 
     payments authorized to be made on October 1 and January 1 of 
     each calendar year: Provided further, That funds made 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations through 
     contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year 1995 as 
     authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (88 
     Stat. 2203; 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), or grants authorized by 
     the Indian Education Amendments of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2001 and 
     2008A) shall remain available until expended by the 
     contractor or grantee: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, $7,500,000 shall remain available until expended, 
     for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall be 
     available for the transitional costs of initial or expanded 
     tribal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements with the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the Indian 
     Self-Determination Act: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be 
     expended as matching funds for programs funded under section 
     103(b)(2) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to transfer funds under 
     a contract with any third party for the management of tribal 
     or individual Indian trust funds until the funds held in 
     trust for all such tribes or individuals have been audited 
     and reconciled to the earliest possible date, the results of 
     such reconciliation have been certified by an independent 
     party as the most complete reconciliation of such funds 
     possible, and the affected tribe or individual has been 
     provided with an accounting of such funds: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the statute 
     of limitations shall not commence to run on any claim, 
     including any claim in litigation pending on the date of this 
     Act, concerning losses to or mismanagement of trust funds, 
     until the affected tribe or individual Indian has been 
     furnished with the accounting of such funds from which the 
     beneficiary can determine whether there has been a loss: 
     Provided further, That to provide funding uniformity within a 
     Self-Governance Compact, any funds provided in this Act with 
     availability for more than one year may be reprogrammed to 
     one year availability but shall remain available within the 
     Compact until expended: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, Indian tribal 
     governments may, by appropriate changes in eligibility 
     criteria or by other means, change eligibility for general 
     assistance or change the amount of general assistance 
     payments for individuals within the service area of such 
     tribe who are otherwise deemed eligible for general 
     assistance payments so long as such changes are applied in a 
     consistent manner to individuals similarly situated: Provided 
     further, That any savings realized by such changes shall be 
     available for use in meeting other priorities of the tribes: 
     Provided further, That any such change must be part of a 
     comprehensive tribal plan for reducing the long-term need for 
     general assistance payments: Provided further, That any such 
     tribal plan must incorporate, to the greatest extent 
     feasible, currently existing social service, educational 
     training, and employment assistance resources prior to 
     changing general assistance eligibility or payment standards 
     which would have the effect of increasing the cost of general 
     assistance: Provided further, That any net increase in costs 
     to the Federal government which result solely from tribally 
     increased payment levels and which are not part of such a 
     comprehensive tribal plan shall be met exclusively from funds 
     available to the tribe from within its tribal priority 
     allocation: Provided further, That any forestry funds 
     allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of September 
     30, 1995, may be transferred during fiscal year 1996 to an 
     Indian forest land assistance account established for the 
     benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund account: 
     Provided further, That any such unobligated balances not so 
     transferred shall expire on September 30, 1996: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, other than 
     the amounts provided herein for assistance to public schools 
     under the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended 
     (25 U.S.C. 452 et seq.), shall be available to support the 
     operation of any elementary or secondary school in the State 
     of Alaska in fiscal year 1995: Provided further, That within 
     the funds contained in this Act, only the following new 
     schools may receive initial funding pursuant to the 
     provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2001(k) or 2505(a)(1)(C) and (D): 
     Trenton and Sault Ste. Marie.


                              construction

       For construction, major repair, and improvement of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands and interests in lands; and 
     preparation of lands for farming, $131,030,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $1,500,000 of the 
     funds made available in this Act shall be available for 
     rehabilitation of tribally owned fish hatcheries and related 
     facilities: Provided further, That such amounts as may be 
     available for the construction of the Navajo Indian 
     Irrigation Project and for other water resource development 
     activities related to the Southern Arizona Water Rights 
     Settlement Act may be transferred to the Bureau of 
     Reclamation: Provided further, That not to exceed 6 per 
     centum of contract authority available to the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway Trust Fund may be 
     used to cover the road program management costs of the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs: Provided further, That any funds provided 
     for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 13 shall 
     be made available on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $6,000,000 of contract authority 
     and liquidating cash available in fiscal year 1995 from the 
     Federal Highway Trust Fund may be used for the acquisition of 
     road construction equipment.


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $82,896,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $78,851,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 87-483, 97-
     293, 101-618, 102-374, 102-441, 102-575, and 103-116, and for 
     implementation of other enacted water rights settlements, 
     including not to exceed $8,000,000, which shall be for the 
     Federal share of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina 
     Claims Settlement, as authorized by section 5(a) of Public 
     Law 103-116; and of which $1,045,000 shall be available 
     pursuant to Public Laws 98-500, 99-264, and 100-580; and of 
     which $3,000,000 shall be available (1) to liquidate 
     obligations owed tribal and individual Indian payees of any 
     checks canceled pursuant to section 1003 of the Competitive 
     Equality Banking Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-86 (101 Stat. 
     659)), 31 U.S.C. 3334(b), (2) to restore to Individual Indian 
     Monies trust funds, Indian Irrigation Systems, and Indian 
     Power Systems accounts amounts invested in credit unions or 
     defaulted savings and loan associations and which were not 
     Federally insured, including any interest on these amounts 
     that may have been earned, but was not because of the 
     default, and (3) to reimburse Indian trust fund account 
     holders for losses to their respective accounts where the 
     claim for said loss(es) has been reduced to a judgment or 
     settlement agreement approved by the Department of Justice.


               technical assistance of indian enterprises

       For payment of management and technical assistance requests 
     associated with loans and grants approved under the Indian 
     Financing Act of 1974, as amended, $1,970,000.


                   indian direct loan program account

       For the cost, as defined in section 13201 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, including the cost of modifying 
     loans, of expert assistance loans authorized by the Act of 
     November 4, 1963, as amended, and the cost of direct loans 
     authorized by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended, 
     $2,484,000: Provided, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $10,890,000.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $8,784,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize total loan principal any 
     part of which is to be guaranteed not to exceed $46,900,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, $906,000.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, the Technical Assistance of Indian 
     Enterprises account, the Indian Direct Loan Program account, 
     and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account) shall be 
     available for expenses of exhibits, and purchase of not to 
     exceed 255 passenger carrying motor vehicles, of which not to 
     exceed 210 shall be for replacement only.

                 Territorial and International Affairs


                     administration of territories

       For expenses necessary for the administration of 
     territories under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 
     Interior, $83,139,000 of which (1) $78,962,000 shall be 
     available until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, drug 
     interdiction and abuse prevention, insular management 
     controls, and brown tree snake control and research; grants 
     to the judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and 
     expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to 
     the Government of American Samoa, in addition to current 
     local revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,177,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Territorial and 
     International Affairs: Provided, That all financial 
     transactions of the territorial and local governments herein 
     provided for, including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or utilized by such 
     governments, shall be audited by the General Accounting 
     Office, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana Islands 
     Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to those 
     terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives on 
     Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 99-396, or any 
     subsequent legislation related to Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding, except that 
     should the Secretary of the Interior believe that the 
     performance standards of such agreement are not being met, 
     operations funds may be withheld, but only by Act of Congress 
     as required by Public Law 99-396: Provided further, That 
     $1,025,000 of the amounts provided for technical assistance 
     shall be available for a grant to the Close Up Foundation: 
     Provided further, That the funds for the program of 
     operations and maintenance improvement are appropriated to 
     institutionalize routine operations and maintenance of 
     capital infrastructure in American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
     and the Federated States of Micronesia through assessments of 
     long-range operations and maintenance needs, improved 
     capability of local operations and maintenance institutions 
     and agencies (including management and vocational education 
     training), and project-specific maintenance (with territorial 
     participation and cost sharing to be determined by the 
     Secretary based on the individual territory's commitment to 
     timely maintenance of its capital assets): Provided further, 
     That any appropriation for disaster assistance under this 
     head in this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used 
     as non-Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard 
     mitigation grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).


                 trust territory of the pacific islands

       For expenses necessary for the Department of the Interior 
     in administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands pursuant to the Trusteeship Agreement approved by 
     joint resolution of July 18, 1947 (61 Stat. 397), and the Act 
     of June 30, 1954 (68 Stat. 330), as amended (90 Stat. 299; 91 
     Stat. 1159; 92 Stat. 495), and grants to the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands, in addition to local revenues, for 
     support of governmental functions; $2,900,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That all financial 
     transactions of the Trust Territory, including such 
     transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established 
     or utilized by such Trust Territory, shall be audited by the 
     General Accounting Office in accordance with chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code.


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compacts of Free Association, 
     $25,102,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by Public Law 99-239; and in addition, for special 
     assistance as authorized by Public Law 101-219, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in Sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $7,556,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 99-658.

                          Departmental Offices

                        Office of the Secretary


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     the Interior, $62,599,000 of which not to exceed $7,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $1,184,000 are permanently canceled.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $35,374,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $23,985,000.


                        construction management

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Construction 
     Management, $2,000,000.

                   National Indian Gaming Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission, pursuant to Public Law 100-497, $1,000,000.


                       administrative provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 18 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided 
     further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in 
     the ``Office of the Secretary'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', 
     and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through 
     the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and must be replenished by a supplemental 
     appropriation which must be requested as promptly as 
     possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oilspills; response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oilspills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to the ``Emergency 
     Department of the Interior Firefighting Fund'' shall have 
     been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds used 
     pursuant to this section are hereby designated by Congress to 
     be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and must be replenished by a supplemental 
     appropriation which must be requested as promptly as 
     possible: Provided further, That such replenishment funds 
     shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata basis, accounts 
     from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, U.S.C.: Provided, That reimbursements 
     for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, and for 
     services rendered may be credited to the appropriation 
     current at the time such reimbursements are received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     by the General Services Administration for services or 
     rentals for periods not in excess of twelve months beginning 
     at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the 
     areas of Northern, Central, and Southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the Eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of leasing, 
     or the approval or permitting of any drilling or other 
     exploration activity, on lands within the North Aleutian 
     Basin planning area.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico for Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale 151 in the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource 
     Management Comprehensive Program, 1992-1997.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Atlantic for Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lease Sale 164 in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management Comprehensive 
     Program, 1992-1997.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     publish a National final rule defining the term ``valid 
     existing rights'' for purposes of section 522(e) of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 or to 
     publish a final rule disapproving any existing State 
     definition of valid existing rights.
       Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to accept or process applications for a patent for any mining 
     or mill site claim located under the general mining laws or 
     to issue a patent for any mining or mill site claim located 
     under the general mining laws.
       Sec. 113. The provisions of section 112 shall not apply if 
     the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the claim 
     concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with the 
     Secretary on or before the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     (2) all requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 
     of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or 
     lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer 
     claims, and section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 
     42) for mill site claims, as the case may be, were fully 
     complied with by that date.
       Sec. 114. Of the offsetting collections credited to public 
     enterprise fund numbered 14-4053 in fiscal year 1995, $38,000 
     is permanently cancelled as a result of procurement cost 
     savings.
       Sec. 115. None of the funds available to the National Park 
     Service in this Act may be used to process permits necessary 
     for construction of a bridge to Ellis Island.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order on title I?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the Pombo 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is referring to an amendment that is to 
be offered.
  Mr. YATES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.


                     amendment offered by mr. pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo: Page 9, line 17, strike 
     ``$514,650,000'' and insert ``$494,945,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] reserve a 
point of order on this amendment?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer today an amendment which would 
reduce the appropriation for the Endangered Species Act to last year's 
level of $494 million, from what is currently in the bill, $514 
million. It is about a $20 million cut in what is currently in the 
bill. It would be a savings of nearly $20 million, which would amount 
to a great deal. It would freeze spending on the Endangered Species Act 
until we receive hearings and markup on the reauthorization.
  I believe that the American people, several Members of Congress on 
both sides of the aisle, as well as the Secretary of the Interior, have 
stated that the Endangered Species Act does need to be reexamined, that 
it is in need of reauthorization, that there are many points to it 
which we do need to look into and change in order to make it a more 
efficient and more realistic act.
  I do not believe, until there is reform, that the money would be 
spent wisely. I do not feel that at this time, with the horror stories 
that are throughout the entire country, that we should increase 
spending on the Endangered Species Act until we have had a chance to 
reauthorize and reform what is currently being done.

  If you currently look at the way that ESA is being used across the 
country, if it were truly being used to save endangered species only, 
there would be little, if any, opposition to its support. But because 
of the way it is being used across the country, being used as a way of 
land use planning, being used as a method of implementing a social 
agenda of a chosen few, it is not being accepted well.
  Because of that, I feel we not only need to send a message to the 
Department of the Interior and to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but I 
feel it is extremely important at this time that we do not authorize 
any more funds than what was currently being spent.
  If we are going to increase this, it should be offset in other 
places.
  Right now as I speak, there is a case that is going on in California, 
just south of me. It involves the Endangered Species Act. It involves a 
farmer who was farming his ranch, who was planting his crops, and he 
inadvertently ran over a tipton kangeroo rat, which is on the 
endangered species list.
  When someone from the Fish and Wildlife Service entered his private 
property and witnessed this, he was placed under arrest, he faces a 
fine of up to $200,000 and a year in jail for inadvertently running 
over a tipton kangeroo rat. And I guess, to make matters worse, they 
impounded and took away his tractor, his way of making a living, 
because he ran over a rat. It is instances such as this that I feel it 
is imperative that at this time we look at reauthorizing the Endangered 
Species Act with the need of reforms.
  I believe it is sending the wrong message from this Congress to the 
Interior Department, to the Fish and Wildlife Service, to not only fund 
the Endangered Species Act but to increase that funding substantially 
so that they continue on with these activities.
  If any money should be spent on the Endangered Species Act at this 
time, it should be spent on paying back the people, the private 
property owners who have lost the use of their property over the past 
20 years because of the implementation of the act. This is an area 
where we have been sorely lacking in responding to the constitutionally 
required takings amendment, the fifth amendment, which requires that if 
you are taking a person's property for public use, that they receive 
just compensation, which is currently not being done under the current 
implementation of the act.

                              {time}  1220

  So, Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to encourage my colleagues 
to send a message to the Interior Department, to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and to the country that we will not accept this kind of action.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time for 
debate on this amendment and amendments thereto close by 1 o'clock, the 
time to be evenly divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request is for 40 minutes to 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, evenly divided, 20 
minutes for the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and 20 minutes 
for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]?
  Mr. YATES. That is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Legislation is pending for continuation of the Endangered Species 
Act. The chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is 
present at this debate, and we will go into this in some length later 
on, but I have a letter here from the Secretary of the Inferior, Mr. 
Babbitt, which I will place in the Record in its entirety at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  In this letter, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of the Interior says:

       This amendment would essentially stop implementation of the 
     forest plan in the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
     California. Ironically, although the proposed amendment may 
     be intended to address concerns that the ESA is resulting in 
     economic impacts to private landowners and to economic 
     development interests, its impact will only be to exacerbate 
     those problems. Increases proposed for the endangered species 
     program are designed to address habitat needs over large land 
     areas so that development can continue with the least impact 
     on wildlife. The forest plan is a good example. Because of 
     the forest plan, timber harvests, now on hold, would be able 
     to resume. The proposed reduction would devastate the forest 
     plan.

  I think that this would destroy the endangered species program, and I 
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo].
  The letter in its entirety is as follows:

                                    Secretary of the Interior,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1994.
     Hon. Sidney R. Yates,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Yates: I would like to express the serious 
     concerns I have about a possible amendment to further reduce 
     funding for endangered species programs below the 
     recommendation of the Appropriations Committee.
       Obviously, there are some members of Congress with concerns 
     about the Endangered Species Act and its effect on the 
     American public. I share these concerns and have made it one 
     of my personal goals to implement the Act in a way that 
     works, minimizing economic impacts and maximizing protection 
     for species at risk. Of course, this requires funding, but it 
     can save billions of dollars in local communities if we can 
     help them to plan development in a way that does not severely 
     affect wildlife.
       I commend the Committee in its handling of these programs, 
     given the fiscal constraints you are under. Although there 
     were reductions, these were distributed responsibly and would 
     allow us to continue with our top priorities, such as the 
     Pacific Northwest forest plan. It is my understanding that an 
     amendment may be offered that would reduce funding for these 
     programs by another $20 million. A reduction of this 
     magnitude would take the endangered species program $1.0 
     million below the FY 1994 enacted level. This is very 
     disturbing to me.
       This amendment would essentially stop implementation of the 
     forest plan in the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
     California. Ironically, although the proposed amendment may 
     be intended to address concerns that the ESA is resulting in 
     economic impacts to private landowners and to economic 
     development interests, its impact will only be to exacerbate 
     those problems. Increases proposed for the endangered species 
     program are designed to address habitat needs over large land 
     areas so that development can continue with the least impact 
     on wildlife. The forest plan is a good example. Because of 
     the forest plan, timber harvests, now on hold, would be able 
     to resume. The proposed reduction would devastate the forest 
     plan.
       Under the proposed amendment another endangered species 
     program I am trying to emphasize--prelisting--would be 
     reduced below the FY 1994 level. This program is designed to 
     take recovery-type actions to help species that may be in 
     jeopardy, but have not yet been listed. The prelisting 
     program avoids having to list species with all the economic 
     consequences to local economic interests that occur with 
     listing. Again, the reduction would make it more likely that 
     species declines would continue and protective, restrictive 
     measures would then have to be implemented.
       Funding for consultations, recovery planning and recovery 
     actions would be reduced below the FY 1994 level. In addition 
     to funds for the forest plan, the Administration has proposed 
     an additional $5.1 million for recovery and $2.9 got 
     consultations. The Federal government has a responsibility to 
     help other federal agencies, non-federal agencies and private 
     landowners to meet the requirements of the Act. However, the 
     amendment would result in less, rather than more assistance 
     from the Fish and Wildlife Service in avoiding the negative 
     consequences of the Act. It would also cause significant 
     delays in planning and recovery actions so that important 
     species can be delisted.
       I ask that you do whatever to can to prevent any reductions 
     to the endangered species program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo] yielding this time to me, and I appreciate the work of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula].
  From time to time, Mr. Chairman, in this body we passed pieces of 
legislation that we find out it is not working the way we though it 
should work, and we have to go back, we have to change it, and we have 
to amend it. I have never seen a greater example of changing and 
amending legislation than the Endangered Species Act. It was originally 
intended, if my colleagues want to go back to 1973 and look at it, what 
it was intended to do; it was intended to take care of the larger 
species: the grizzly bear, the bald eagle, and now I have written a 
letter to Fish and Wildlife asking them a question, where they get the 
authority to get to the slimy slug and the ring-tailed rufous. But 
somewhere in there they seem to have been able to find it through some 
convoluted theory of how they do this.
  Actually, Mr. Chairman, as we look through the act we find three 
places where it ought to be changed. One is the area where it talks 
about solely, that all they will look at is solely the biological 
features of the particular species. That should be changed, and other 
things like the economy of the area should be one of the 
considerations, as we have seen in the northwest with the spotted owl, 
as we see in California, Nevada, and Utah with the desert tortoise, as 
we see in Arizona with the red squirrel, as we see in Colorado with the 
squaw fish and other areas.
  Another area that should be taken care of is in the taking provision. 
The Constitution says in the fifth amendment: ``Nor shall private 
property be taken for public pursuits without just compensation.'' This 
is worse than taking. Those of us who have served in local and State 
government have used eminent domain. We go in and we take the property 
in an amount of minutes, but we give the person money, we pay for it. 
What do we do with this? The person cannot even use his own land, but 
he still pays taxes on it. This is much worse, the way it is taken.
  A third one should be the definition section. Go back and read in 
1973, find anywhere that it talked about going to the sub, sub, sub, 
subspecies. They did not talk about the brown stinking snail in the 
Provo River. Right now in the Colorado River we have a problem. We are 
able to give electricity, the cleanest kind, to the people all through 
that area for very low cost, but because of four particular fish that 
when I was a kid we called them trash fish, we tried to kill them out 
with rodents and could not do it over the years; now all four of those 
are endangered species. So we are going to lose the trout in the 
Colorado River for these, we are probably going to lose river running, 
we are losing our cheap power, and maybe we will have to talk about 
where the water goes.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as I look at this particular act, it is not 
living up to what we asked it to do. I have great respect for the act. 
I think we should take care of endangered species. But this particular 
act has gone way too far. The purpose of the act has been changed, and 
I think it would be prudent for Republicans and Democrats alike to say, 
``Let's change this so we can live with it.''
  This is one of the things that the people in the west are so upset 
about, and, if my colleagues go into their town meetings, they talk to 
their people, they will find in every district in America people are 
being hurt by this act that has gone way beyond what it was intended to 
do. I would hope that we could go along with the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Pombo] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pombo amendment. This 
amendment would keep Congress from appropriating a nearly 30-percent 
increase for the ESA, an act which expired on January 1 of this year.
  As we all know, the ESA is in need of fundamental reform. It still 
remains a priority for Congress; however, until Congress reauthorizes 
the ESA, Congress should not be increasing the funding level by an 
additional $20 million. This will not destroy the program. It is not 
even a cut. What we are doing is we are maintaining it at current 
spending levels.

  Instead, Mr. Chairman, we can be offering the taxpayer a savings of 
$20 million. I ask all of my colleagues to vote on the side of their 
taxpaying constituents, rather than supporting an increase for an 
unauthorized act. The Pombo Amendment represents a reasonable approach 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the same frustrations as my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle have expressed, and what they are saying is accurate 
in the sense that we need to reform the law. But the way to address the 
problems that have been outlined is to change the base law, and that is 
an authorizing committee's responsibility. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 
we in the appropriations committee have to fund what is required under 
the law. One of the things that we are trying to address is this timber 
problem in the Pacific Northwest.

                              {time}  1230

  The bulk of the increase that we have put in the bill is to address 
the recovery problems in the Pacific Northwest so we can get some 
timber harvested up there, and it will be beneficial to the increase in 
timber harvest if we can get a proper recovery plan in place.
  Also I might add that there have been some successes. The gray whale 
is off the endangered species list, and the eagle has been downgraded 
to a much less degree of protection because the system is working. But 
as my colleagues have pointed out, we get some egregious situations 
that result from the law, and I would hope that the authorizing 
committee will take a look at the base law and see if there is a better 
way to address the problems of protecting these species while at the 
same time making it possible for people to work effectively with it.
  But in the meantime, in our appropriations process we have to have 
adequate funds to carry out the law as it is on the books today, and I 
would hope that my colleagues who are concerned about this would urge 
the authorizing committee to take a new look and see if based on our 
experiences, the endangered species law should have some changes. But 
in the meantime I urge my colleagues to support the committee's funding 
level because otherwise we cannot effectively carry out what is in the 
law today.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
  I would just comment briefly on some of the factors that I think 
ought to go into this decision of funding. It goes back again largely 
to process.
  We could talk about the fact that endangered species takes only into 
account the critters that are involved; it takes no interest in the 
economy or in jobs or in the people or in the ownership of land. But I 
will not talk about that.
  We could talk a little bit about the fact that we cannot seem to get 
anything delisted--the whales, I think, largely because of the Marine 
Mammal Act, not because of endangered species, and as to the grizzly 
bear, every scientist in the area of Yellowstone Park says the grizzly 
bear should be delisted. But they are not. And I will not talk about 
that.
  I will not talk about the fact that we use the Endangered Species Act 
simply as a way to get more Federal management on the lands within the 
States. Oftentimes it has very little to do with endangered species.
  But what I would like to talk about, frankly, is the process. The 
process ought to be with the authorizing committee, and somehow there 
has been some resistance to moving forward with this. But we ought to 
do that. That is where it ought to be. We ought not to increase the 
funding until we have done what we need to have done in the authorizing 
committee, and that is take another look at the Endangered Species Act.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Of course, I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only point I want to make is that we 
already have a lot of problems we have to deal with. If we cut out the 
money for the Endangered Species Act, we are out there trying to work 
with the private land owners in the Pacific Northwest to do habitat 
conservation.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I understand that.
  Mr. DICKS. We are trying to implement the 4-D rule so we can get some 
of these restrictions lifted. But in order to do it we have to have 
money for consultation.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. You do have the money, and this amendment 
simply puts it back where it was.
  Mr. DICKS. But we need more money. We have bigger problems.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Of course, you need money. Who does not? 
Everybody needs more money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] has 
expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our good colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to the Pombo amendment and my strong support for the Interior 
appropriations bill, in particular, the $1.5 million it provides for 
land acquisition in the Columbian White-tailed Deer Refuge, also known 
as the Julie B. Hansen Refuge. Encompassing riparian and island areas 
along the Columbia River, this refuge provides critical habitat for the 
endangered Columbian white-tailed deer. The acquisition of additional 
wetland and riparian forest areas, as provided for in H.R. 4602, will 
protect enough habitat for the deer that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
anticipates being able to de-list these species under the Endangered 
Species Act. This is truly an endangered species success story.
  Our experience with the Columbian white-tailed deer should teach us 3 
important lessons. One, the Endangered Species Act does indeed work. 
Implementation of a recovery plan, with the active involvement and 
support of local residents--including a local utility and pulp mill--
can bring a species back from the brink of extinction, and with minimal 
economic impact and maximum social benefit to the community. Two, the 
story of the Columbian white-tailed deer clearly illustrates that to 
save a species, we must protect its habitat. We may be voting later 
today on an amendment that will try to severely restrict the Federal 
Government's ability to protect the critical habitat of our Nation's 
endangered species. Let us not fool ourselves--if we don't protect a 
species' home, we're not protecting the species and we will be 
incurring future economic, cultural and social upheaval.
  Three, the Columbian white-tailed deer show us the merits of acting 
proactively to protect endangered species. It is more cost effective, 
less time consuming, and less impacting on the local economies and 
communities that depend on healthy natural resources to take preventive 
measures to protect populations at risk. Decreasing the budget for 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act--so that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service only has the resources to take action when a species 
is almost gone--is a recipe for future species trainwrecks. And we in 
the Northwest are all too aware of the economic and social impacts that 
result when we wait too long to protect a species. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote no against the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, had I had the chance under the rule, I 
would have offered an amendment this morning challenging the Department 
of the Interior to do what the circuit court of appeals here in the 
District of Columbia has declared to be the law. The court of appeals 
in the Sweet Home case decided that as a matter of law the Department 
of the Interior was not interpreting the Endangered Species Act 
correctly.
  It decided that this department of the Government was, in fact, 
depriving people of their private property rights in the implementation 
of the Endangered Species Act unnecessarily.
  What it said in effect was that the language in the Endangered 
Species Act which speaks of the prohibition against harming or 
harassing an endangered species was never intended by Congress as an 
authority for the department to tell people they could not modify their 
premises, that they could not live on and use their property. As a 
consequence of the department's erroneous interpretation of the take or 
harm and harass provisions of the Endangered Species Act, property 
owners across America are being told they cannot do things with their 
property they ought to have the right to do.
  For example, in California, when the kangaroo rat was declared an 
endangered species, a threatened species, all of a sudden property 
owners living in Southern California found themselves facing a dilemma. 
Up until last year they had been ordered to disc around their homes and 
actually destroy the brush around their property so that that brush 
would not create a fire hazard for their communities. Last year the 
Fish and Wildlife Service said, ``If you do it, we will put you in 
jail. It is a violation of the Endangered Species Act. We have got to 
protect the kangaroo rat, so you can't protect your homes.''
  Most home owners obeyed the Fish and Wildlife Service and lost their 
homes as the fires swept through communities in southern California. 
Some disobeyed the law and saved their homes.
  So we are left with a Department interpreting and enforcing an act 
that says in America that a kangaroo rat's home is more important than 
the home of a citizen of the United States of America. We are left with 
an interpretation of this act that our Department fully intends to 
continue implementing, but that the court of appeals here in 
Washington, DC, said was an incorrect interpretation.
  We should have amended this bill today to compel the Department to 
follow the law. But the Committee on Rules said, ``Oh, no, we are not 
going to give you a waiver to allow that amendment on an appropriations 
bill.''
  But let us look at this bill. We see that they granted other waivers. 
They granted a waiver for language that says you can't drill offshore. 
That is legislation on an appropriation bill. But this was not 
important enough an issue for the Committee on Rules to let this House 
debate it.
  Let me tell the Members what we are building in this country. We are 
building an incredible train wreck if the Department continues to use 
the Endangered Species Act to deprive people of their property rights 
without just compensation. We are building an incredible train wreck 
the environmental community is not helping us to do anything about 
because they are telling us we cannot reform the Endangered Species Act 
this year, that it is too controversial. And it looks like we are not 
going to be able to take up the Clean Water Act this year because it is 
too controversial on wetlands So instead, we are keeping on doing what 
we have been doing, interpreting the law to deprive people of their 
property rights in America without just compensation.
  We ought to protect endangered species. We ought to protect 
threatened species in America, but we ought to allow people to use 
their property, too. We ought to respect private property rights, and 
when we take them away, we ought to pay people just compensation as the 
U.S. Constitution provides. No private property should be taken for 
public purposes without just compensation.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, just to point out 
the moratorium on offshore drilling is a limitations on an 
appropriation bill, and not substantive legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out the amendment we 
offered at the Committee on Rules was not a limitation on 
appropriation. It simply said you cannot spend money to enforce the law 
against what the court of appeals here in Washington, DC, said was a 
proper interpretation of the law. It was identical to that limitation 
to appropriations contained in the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. There is a slight interpretations difference here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my friend the 
decision he spoke to has been stayed by the courts, because there are 
two conflicting decisions. Until that is resolved, they are stayed.
  Mr. DICKS. The ninth circuit has taken an opposite position on this.
  Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] and to the distinguished ranking member, for a 
statesmanlike job on a very difficult subject.
  The Endangered Species Act is a fundamental environmental statute. It 
is extraordinarily important, it has widespread public support, and, 
unfortunately, it is very easy to caricature. If in fact, as one Member 
suggested, the only critters protected by this law were cuddly and 
fuzzy and immediately lovable to our types, maybe it would be a lot 
more difficult to caricature. But the law does not speak to preserving 
cuddly critters. It speaks to all species. Yes, including subspecies 
explicitly in the original statute.
  Let me say the single most important thing changed in the last couple 
of years has been the attitude of the administration, and most 
significantly the Secretary of the Interior. For the first time in a 
long time we have a Secretary determined to make this law work. His 
predecessors were determined to prove it could not work, and they did a 
pretty good job in their own terms.
  I would point out that the gentleman from Washington State, who is 
now speaking ardently in opposition to this amendment, did not have 
very many kind things to say about this statute and its impact on his 
region of the country a few years ago, because it was in fact being 
administered by a Secretary who did not want it to work and had 
engineered some very major train wrecks in the Pacific Northwest.
  We now have a Secretary who wants it to work and who has seen to it 
that it will work, and I think we have a responsibility to try to help 
him, rather than to obfuscate the situation and make his job more 
difficult.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], read from a letter from the 
Secretary with regard to the importance of this program. One of the 
ironies of this amendment is it seeks to strike the very funds which 
the new Secretary of the Interior is dedicating to see to it the 
problems he deplores are avoided and avoidable.
  If I may, with specific reference, because it is so easy to find a 
noncuddly critter and say what a silly thing this is, the instance 
cited as justification for this amendment by its author, the small 
farmer in California, it is portrayed to us as if suddenly out of the 
heavens, without warning, came some awful Federal agent depriving this 
person of his rights without notice.
  Two years ago, in November 1992, the gentleman in question was 
informed by the California Department of Fish and Game, and let me 
read, if I may, from that letter dated November 24, 1992:

       Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin: It has come to the attention of the 
     Department,

and this is the California State Department, incidentally, of Fish and 
Game,

     that you or your company intend to develop and/or modify the 
     land you own.
       This letter is to serve as notification to you that the 
     department has identified this area as native threatened and 
     endangered species habitat that now contains significant 
     populations of both state and federally listed threatened and 
     endangered plants and animals.
       There are several state and Federal environmental 
     regulations pertaining to impacts on threatened and 
     endangered species. Any unpermitted modification or 
     development of this land would cause an adverse impact and 
     constitute a violation of the law.

  Let me complete this. This is the notice, almost 2 years ago, to this 
gentleman. Then it says at the end:

       Before you proceed with any projects that may impact 
     threatened or endangered species, either directly or through 
     habitat modification, you must first satisfy the requirements 
     of the California law and the Federal laws,

and this process gives him someone he could be in touch with.
  This is not an unnoticed, suddenly outrageous, incomprehensible 
edict. Two years ago he was quietly and politely and routinely informed 
that he needed to consult because there was a problem.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
chairman, who does make a number of good points.
  I agree with the gentleman that the Endangered Species Act is one of 
the fundamental building blocks of our environmental policy in this 
country. But to point out specifically on the letter that the gentleman 
mentioned, the proper way at that time, when they are telling him he 
can no longer do anything with his property, is to start the eminent 
domain proceedings and to pay him for what they are in effect taking 
from him. And that is the property that he bought with the intention of 
farming.
  That is not what is happening today. That is why there is so much 
frustration, not only on this House floor and in the committee that you 
chair, but across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California.
  The Washington Times in a recent editorial quoted the National 
Wilderness Institute as saying about the Endangered Species Act.

       The Federal endangered species program is out of control. 
     Expenditures identified in recovery plans grossly understate 
     the actual costs of recovery because many tasks called for in 
     the plans do not include cost estimates, and none of the 
     costs imposed on the private sector are included. The 
     government has no idea of the true cost of the endangered 
     species program * * * Though unmeasured, the costs of 
     implementing the act as currently written are in the multi-
     billions, yet in over twenty years, not a single endangered 
     species has legitimately been recovered and delisted as a 
     result of the Endangered Species Act.

  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from the 
great State of California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would 
reject this amendment.
  Whatever people feel and their concerns about the administration of 
the Endangered Species Act, this amendment in and of itself does 
nothing about that, except to probably complicate and make the 
administration worse than many people are now concerned.
  In a number of areas, and specifically in the Pacific Northwest, we 
are on our way to solving a problem that was allowed to fester by the 
previous administration in their desire not to administer the act 
properly and to hope that they could build up enough political 
pressure, and unfortunately, enough pain in the communities of the 
Pacific Northwest and communities that were seeing the economy change 
and needed help, they desired to build up the pressure to see if they 
could overturn the Endangered Species Act.
  That did not work, and now we have an administration, the Clinton 
administration, that is desiring to see the Endangered Species Act 
carried out and also to help these communities recover.
  In the State of California, we have problems in the delta. You cut 
this money and what you do not do is allow us to work out those 
problems, where just yesterday we announced that the Federal 
Government, the State government, the urban water users, the rural 
water users, and agricultural interests, are coming together to work 
out a plan to try to deal with this. That is what this money is for, to 
avoid those train wrecks, to avoid that kind of economic plan, to avoid 
that uncertainty, and to bring about a resolution of these issues.
  Now, if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle simply wants to 
continue the status quo that he so deplores, then simply cut all of the 
money so we cannot get on with resolving these issues. This committee 
is strained for the allocation of its resources, but also it recognizes 
that we have got to resolve these areas, we have got to implement 
recovery plans, so that the communities and our constituents can get on 
with their lives and get out from underneath the Endangered Species 
Act, where we will not have to go to listings, we will not have to 
impose that kind of economic hardship on those individuals.
  This will not help administer the Endangered Species Act. This will 
not change the Endangered Species Act. It will only make life far more 
difficult for people who are living with the uncertainty of the failure 
to resolve these issues.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. I wish I were as sanguine as the 
Democrats about the good intent of Mr. Babbit. After all, it is Mr. 
Babbit's Fish and Wildlife Service that told people they could not disk 
around their homes to protect themselves against the fire in southern 
California earlier this year or they would be in violation of the law.
  Members have heard the stories told about the absurd kangaroo rat and 
this other rat that the gentleman talked about in Kern County. I mean, 
it is just amazing to me that we as Representatives would be willing to 
countenance a policy that puts rats above people. I do not think we 
ought to spend one dime increasing funding for this Endangered Species 
Act until we get right down to the fundamentals that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and others have talked about relative to 
protecting private property rights.
  We have heard it represented that we are going to stand in the way of 
this marvelous plan for the Pacific Northwest. We have suffered a two-
thirds reduction now in timber that is being harvested, and President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore held a big meeting to resolve the 
economic problems of the region. They sure helped them. They came up 
with a plan that lowered timber production from a two-thirds reduction 
to a four-fifths reduction. It will cost 80,000 jobs in the region. 
That is a lot of help.
  Mr. Chairman, this Pombo amendment is a good step. This vote today 
ought to be a referendum on what people think about the President's 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. I would submit that most 
Americans do not think very positively about it. It is one thing to 
protect species. It is another thing to take away people's God-given 
right to use their property.
  The abuse of these rights has just gotten to the point where it can 
no longer be tolerated. I thank the gentleman from California for 
offering his amendment, for giving us this opportunity to state where 
we stand. Do we support private property? Are we willing to stand up 
and put our vote there, or are we willing to go along with big 
government, big bureaucracy, and with the desires of those who want to 
tell the private property owners how to use their property.
  Then people are just going to tell you what you can and cannot do 
with what is yours and the regulations imposed will only leave you with 
the right to pay taxes on it and virtually nothing else!
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the Members to strongly support the Pombo 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], who has been in the middle of the 
train wreck.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the frustration that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has with the Endangered Species 
Act. But do not turn this into a referendum on the ESA, because what 
happens is they will put more of my timber workers out of work because 
we need this money so that we can complete the studies necessary so we 
can get some timber sales out there, as paltry as they are, under the 
President's plan.
  This does not help the situation. It hurts us. It hurts the workers. 
It hurts the mill owners. it hurts the home building industry.
  We need these bucks. I hope Members will please reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Pombo 
amendment. This amendment takes us back to the thrilling days of 
yesterday and to denial of the endangered species problems.
  Members may disagree on the application of the Endangered Species 
Act. But I do not think we disagree on the real problems that exist in 
the Pacific Northwest or other areas of the country. The fact is that 
these dollars are going to be used as part of a solution to the Pacific 
Northwest. We have a graphic example of a court injunction that has 
been lifted and hopefully, with the administration's plans, and the 
activities and further deliberations, we will see some of the 
restoration of some timber sales.
  The fact is, we can argue and we can have our own politics, but not 
everybody is entitled to their own scientific facts about the way that 
these ecosystems work. The only place we are going to see DNA recreated 
is in Stephen Spielberg science fiction films of this country.
  Man cannot do it in nature. There is a lot we do not know. The fact 
is, the Endangered Species Act has been very successful; over 25,000 
conference resolutions have occurred over its life. The fact is that 
many of the controversial issues become emblematic of what is going on 
here.
  Members today are sort of creating property rights based on a single 
decision. If they really have those rights, obviously the courts would 
have sustained them through a whole series of decisions. So it is 
unfair to take these dollars out, to deny the implementation of the Law 
and address the problems as they exist, not as some wish they were.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave the impression here 
that the Rocky Mountain West is all of one mind on this. My colleagues 
from Colorado spoke earlier in support of this amendment. I speak very 
strongly against it.
  We are faced with the ironic circumstances that a few days after the 
Secretary announced an agreement among the Governors of Colorado, 
Wyoming, and Nebraska to move forward in a positive, proactive way to 
deal with the endangered species recovery problems in the Platte River 
Basin, this amendment would cut off the funding for that constructive 
approach avoiding another train wreck.
  The gentleman from Utah raised the specter on the Colorado River. 
Again, if we adopt this amendment, our ability to proceed thoughtfully 
with the recovery plan for the fish in the Colorado River Basin will be 
undermined.
  Defeat this amendment. It is not good policy.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hamburg].
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of those who have said that this is a counterproductive 
amendment, that we are trying to move forward in the Pacific Northwest 
with solutions to problems that have been created by very poor resource 
management. The President's Northwest Forest plan is not perfect. When 
I go back to my district, I hear a lot of complaints from the timber 
industry. I hear a lot of complaints from the timber industry. I hear a 
lot of complaints from the environmental side. But if there is one 
thing I have learned in government, if both sides are shaking their 
heads and not totally satisfied, we have probably come up with a 
compromise that makes some sense.
  What this amendment will do is not allow us to move forward. The sum 
of $11.3 million of the $20 million that would be provided in enhanced 
funding will be used in the Pacific Northwest. It will largely be used 
by small landowners to do the habitat conservation plans that are 
needed for us to implement the President's plan.
  Please defeat this amendment. This amendment is not good for timber 
work. It is not good for the environment. We need to finally move 
forward. Defeat the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I heard on the other side the cry of 
property rights must be protected and, therefore, vote for this 
amendment. They could not be further from the truth.
  Without the science that will come about because of the 
appropriations included in this bill, the private property rights of 
non-Federal landowners are going to be protected. They will be able to 
comply with the law in the most efficient manner possible. This is the 
way the administration, through the Forest plan, wants to help those 
private property owners be able to comply with the requirements and not 
be inconvenienced, not be prevented from having sustainable management 
of their property. They want it.
  Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the argument that many of my colleagues 
have made on the other side about the need for increased funding in 
this bill. Mr. Chairman, I understand the direction that the gentleman 
would like to go.
  The problem is the way that the Endangered Species Act is being 
implemented. The previous speaker just spoke about science. Science can 
be turned to say anything that the gentleman wants.
  If we had a fair and honest implementation of the Endangered Species 
Act we would allow both sides to introduce their science, and both 
sides would have the opportunity at the time of listing to put their 
biological evidence on the line and give the Secretary of the Interior 
the ability to weigh both sides of the argument as to whether or not 
this was truly an endangered species.
  The spotted owl has talked about a lot here this morning. There are 
arguments on both sides of that issue. We all know that. It has been 
quite a contentious argument and debate over the many years it has 
continued.
  The problem is both sides do not feel that they were heard. Both 
sides do not feel that their arguments were part of the debate. That is 
the situation we find ourselves in today.
  Will the increased appropriation to this bill solve that problem? 
Absolutely not. It will not solve the problem. It will continue the 
current attitude and the current way that the Endangered Species Act is 
being implemented. The only way we change the problems that exist in 
the Endangered Species Act and the way it is being implemented is by 
reforming it, by changing it, by making it work.
  There is no one on this floor who wants to do away with the 
Endangered Species Act and who does not see the value to this world in 
saving endangered species, but there are many arguments that have come 
up not only this morning but over the past several years about how we 
go about saving those species and the implementation of that act.
  The way the act is currently being implemented, we have a series of 
distortions, a series of takings of private property rights. We see the 
very large corporations with the ability to buy off their endangered 
species problem through mitigation.
  If they give a few million dollars through Fish and Wildlife or to 
Fish and Game, their problem goes away. If they pay a biologist to 
determine that their problem is on someone else's property and they can 
declare that someone else's property is critical habitat for whatever 
endangered species happens to be on one's own property, then we can pay 
to make that problem go away.
  Those are some of the problems that exist. In my area it is not the 
big corporations that are being hurt by the Endangered Species Act, it 
is the little farmers who cannot afford to hire a string of attorneys 
and a string of biologists to buy their way out of their problem. Those 
are the people being hurt in my area.
  My entire district is covered by one endangered species or another. 
There is no one in my district that is exempt from this act, because no 
matter what occurs in my part of California, we are overlaid by one 
critical habitat area or another.
  Those are the issues that need to come out and that we need to debate 
in committee and on this floor. That is why it is so important.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], who has been in the middle of this 
problem from the very start.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  No one's district has been more impacted by the spotted owl-old 
growth timber controversy than mine.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state very simply what this amendment will so. 
It will strip the agency charged with implementing this law of any 
flexibility, any flexibility to accommodate private property owners 
rights, and it is a clear invitation to litigation, further 
injunctions, and more disaster.
  If Members like what happened under the Bush administration, they 
will love what would happen under the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] that I probably, as well as any member of this 
body, appreciates the frustration that we all have under the Endangered 
Species Act, and the enormous consequences it has had on the Pacific 
Northwest, which I have had to deal with for the last 4 years.
  However, I have to agree with all of my colleagues, including the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Studds] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], this is 
not the way to attack the problem. Next year we are going to proceed 
with the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, and at that 
time, my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, and all the Members 
concerned are going to have an opportunity to present their amendments.
  Let me tell Members what I think about this issue. I think that a 
species-by-species approach is in grave difficulty and in grave 
trouble. I think we need a comprehensive habitat conservation plan for 
the State of Washington, Oregon, and California, which is a 
multispecies approach, so that once we go to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, once we submit our plan, then we are out from underneath the 
Endangered Species Act. From time to time we may have to use gap 
analysis or other tools, and make adjustments, but those are the issues 
we are going to debate in the reauthorization.
  Right how what this amendment would do would hurt the small guys in 
the Pacific Northwest who are trying to do voluntary habitat 
conservation plans with the Fish and Wildlife Service so they can get 
out from underneath the Endangered Species Act. If the Fish and 
Wildlife Service does not have the money for consultations, if it does 
not have the money for habitat conservation plan work, if it does not 
have the money for the 4(d) rule, we are not going to get out from 
underneath these restrictions.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is trying to help, but this is not 
helping us. This is hurting the cause that the gentleman is trying to 
further.
  I point out to all of my colleagues today, Mr. Chairman, that we have 
cut money out of this particular line item. We recognize there are 
restraints. The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior 
of the Committee on Appropriations has had to take $260 million out of 
this bill. However, we did not take it all out of the Endangered 
Species Act because it would have been counterproductive. Let us vote 
no on this well-intentioned but misguided amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to 
rivet the administration's attention on the need to reform this 
economic growth and job killing law.
  In the following article which is submitted for the Record, and 
appeared in the April 29 issue of the Bakersfield Californian, one can 
see that Fish and Wildlife has undertaken some rather drastic actions 
in the name of the Endangered Species Act. This example, which occurred 
in my district, is one of many examples of ESA enforcement which show 
the pernicious effects of this legislation. We have reached a point 
where a person cannot use their own property to earn a livelihood. The 
Government now controls private property, taking it without paying for 
it. I believe that the Endangered Species Act, as currently written, 
does not adequately address the economic and societal costs associated 
with the preservation of species. The act is just an ``unfunded federal 
mandate,'' which affects the landowner.
  I request, Mr. Chairman, that the House consider limiting the funding 
for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to stop the frivolous 
enforcement of this onerous legislation, while focusing attention on 
the need for reform of the Endangered Species Act now, so that our own 
citizens are not the victims of its enforcement. The amendment would 
send the message to the President that there is a need for reform, and 
that Congress is prepared to support the citizens of this country 
against laws that place animals ahead of people.

           [From the Bakersfield Californian, Apr. 29, 1994]

             Wildlife Act Creates Dilemma for Tractor Firm

                           (By Susan Towers)

       Bakersfield businessman E.G. Berchtold couldn't have been 
     more shocked when he received the official document from the 
     U.S. attorney's office.
       ``The United States of America vs. One Ford Tractor.''
       A $50,000 tractor and disc Berchtold Equipment Co. had sold 
     recently to a customer had been confiscated by the U.S. Fish 
     and Wildlife Service. Berchtold still has a sizable financial 
     interest in the equipment.
       What the document didn't say, but what Berchtold later 
     learned, was that it was the tractor driven by Taung Min Lin 
     when he allegedly ran over and killed several endangered 
     Tipton kangaroo rats about 20 miles southwest of Bakersfield.
       Lin, an El Monte-based businessman and an owner of Wang-Lin 
     Farms Inc., is the first farmer in Kern County to face 
     prosecution under the federal Endangered Species Act, said 
     Karen Kalmanir, assistant U.S. attorney in Fresno.
       ``Our concern is not only the tractor we might lose,'' 
     Berchtold said. ``All of us are losing our rights. The 
     government is doing whatever it wants to do to us. What 
     people don't realize is that this could be their house if 
     they happened to kill some endangered animal in their 
     backyard.''
       The tractor--and a disc--were confiscated by the federal 
     agents in the same way as property is confiscated from drug 
     traffickers, Kalmanir explained.
       The Endangered Special Act ``authorizes the confiscation of 
     instruments of crime,'' she said.
       The document had been sent to Berchtold Equipment Co. to 
     let it know of the forfeiture action so that the company 
     could petition the court to show any financial interest.
       ``We are an innocent party here,'' he said from his 
     Bakersfield office. Berchtold added that he does not know 
     whether he will get the tractor, even though the company has 
     a Uniform Commercial Code document filed with the secretary 
     of state defining the company's financial interest in the 
     equipment.
       ``We sold a tractor that ran over something,'' he said. 
     ``This could happen to anyone. This could happen to a truck 
     sold by Jim Burke Ford.''
       Berchtold also noted that the company was given only a few 
     days to respond to the notice.
       Through Bakersfield attorney Kenneth Bates, Berchtold has 
     filed a response and hopes to either get the rest of the 
     money owed on the tractor, or the tractor back.
       He fears that Lin, facing a possible $200,000 fine and 
     imprisonment if convicted, will not be able to pay the 
     balance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service already has stopped 
     him from farming until the matter has been handled.
       Lin's criminal case will come before the U.S. Magistrate in 
     Fresno May 11.
       ``This is a risk that all of my colleagues in the equipment 
     business are now facing,'' Berchtold said.
       Berchtold also said he was concerned about Lin. The elderly 
     man from Taiwan does not speak English. He does not have an 
     attorney. He does not have any good friends in Kern County 
     and according to ranch manager Robert Sanchez, does not 
     understand the environmental law.
       Fred Starrh Jr., as an active member of the Coalition to 
     Protect and Preserve Private Property Rights, said many local 
     farmers are concerned about Lin's case. ``There are other 
     cases just like this going on right now,'' he said. ``(State) 
     Fish and Game and (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife are out of 
     control.''
       Lin allegedly was caught cultivating virgin desert that he 
     had purchased three years ago from Tenneco Oil Co. Starrh 
     said that as urban Bakersfield expands over farmland, farmers 
     are being forced to move toward the desert.
       ``Basically in this area, any land that is desert is home 
     to endangered species,'' he said. ``Farmers are finding that 
     land they've owned for years but haven't used has become 
     federal reserve property and there is nothing they can do 
     about it.''
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the remainder of title I?


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ALLARD

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Page 14, strike lines 9 
     through 22.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, with 10 
minutes on each side.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I believe I 
have a number of Members who want to speak on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, would the 
gentleman want to make it 30 minutes, with 15 minutes on each side?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree to 45 minutes on 
each side?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, 40 minutes, with 20 minutes on each side.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree to 45 minutes on 
each side? That would be 1\1/2\ hours from now, 3:30.
  Mr. YATES. The gentleman will agree to 45 minutes, half to be 
controlled by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair heard the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard] saying 45 minutes on each side.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes all 
unauthorized funds for the National Biological Survey, which I shall 
refer to as the NBS.
  The Interior appropriations bill contains $167.2 million in funds for 
the NBS. Every nickel of this money is appropriated in violation of the 
rules of this House.
  Once again however, the handy work of the Rules Committee has been 
called upon to waive all points of order concerning unauthorized 
appropriations.
  This happens time after time. It makes a mockery of the rules of this 
House, and it exposes the futility of the Budget Act in the battle to 
achieve deficit reduction.
  While the Rules Committee has made it difficult for us to enforce the 
rules of the House, it has not made it impossible. My amendment would 
strike the unauthorized funds.
  The appropriators and the conferees would then be free to direct that 
any of these funds be transferred to the biological research and survey 
activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, 
the BLM, and any other department bureaus.
  In fact, I have amendment language that I am prepared to offer that 
would accomplish just that. Once the unauthorized NBS funds are 
stricken, my amendment would then allocate the money back to the 
appropriate areas of the Interior Department. Should the Congress 
choose not to exercise this follow-up option, then we would apply the 
$167 million to deficit reduction. When the NBS was debated by the 
House it generated a great deal of controversy on issues such as 
property rights, scientific validity, volunteers, and the creation of a 
new bureaucracy. This issue is too controversial for the administration 
and the appropriators to simply forge ahead with inadequate 
congressional direction.
  I fully anticipate that the chairman will argue on behalf of the 
administration, that the NBS is already authorized. This argument is 
ridiculous.
  If this were the case, why did the House of Representatives spend so 
much time in heated debate this fall voting on an authorization bill.
  Second, the chairman and the Rules Committee must know themselves 
that these funds are unauthorized. Why else would they have seen the 
need to protect the NBS funds with a special waiver of points of order?
  Third, I have reviewed the evidence cited by the administration to 
support its argument that authorization already exists. I find it 
totally unpersuasive. First, they cite section 5 of the Fish and 
Wildlife Act of 1956, providing for reports and investigations 
concerning the availability and abundance and the biological 
requirements of the fish and wildlife resources.
  This provision is in clear reference to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. For starters, there is absolutely no mention of plant life, 
and to use this language to justify--nearly 40 years later--the 
creation of a massive, all-encompassing survey of plant and animal life 
on public and private land is an extraordinary stretch.
  The administration also makes reference to the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The first of these 
permits the making of surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the 
public domain. Again, no reference to private land or to plants. The 
second statute deals only with some species of migratory birds, and 
says nothing beyond that.
  The administration does not address the issue of multiple 
jurisdiction. What authority does the Interior Department have to take 
all this action on its own? There may clearly be jurisdiction for the 
Agriculture Department since the NBS will affect the National Forests 
and all wildlife therein. Similarly, there is potential jurisdiction 
for the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Commerce Department.
  In short, I see no evidence that there is any authority for the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct the giant, comprehensive inventory 
of all plant and animal life--a cataloging of the ecosystems, as it is 
referred to.
  While we are on the topic of authorization I would like to cite the 
written testimony of two important House chairmen on this issue of 
authorization.
  In written testimony of May 1, 1993, before the Appropriations 
Committee, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee stated that 
although he supported the NBS, ``I believe that the NBS can carry out 
its functions only if authorized to do so. Therefore, I request that 
the appropriation be made subject to an authorization.''

                              {time}  1310

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Unsoeld). The time of the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Allard] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Allard was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Similarly, the chairman of the House Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in the same forum stated that ``any new 
agency ought to be authorized by statute, and I intend to authorize 
it.''
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object to the 
gentleman's request to extend for an additional 5 minutes, I am not 
going to object to the gentleman's 5 minutes as I have a right to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is too late to object to this request for 
an additional 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Colorado had proceeded before the objection was 
made.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, now, I realize that Secretary Babbitt was 
not happy with the private property and other restrictions that the 
House placed on the NBS last fall. And I realize there is frustration 
that the Senate has not moved any authorization legislation, but that 
does not justify an end run around the process.
  The bottom line is this, the National Biological Survey should be 
properly authorized, and all appropriations should be made subject to 
that authorization.
  Let me address some of the specific reasons why this legislation 
should be authorized. First, private property concerns.
  It is true that some language requiring permission from property 
owners is required before new surveys can be conducted on their land is 
included in the appropriation. However, this covers only the 1 year of 
appropriations. This protection should be a permanent provision in the 
language authorizing the NBS. Private property owners should not have 
to rely upon the annual goodwill of the appropriators to include this 
language each year.
  As my colleagues will recall, this issue was the subject of an 
amendment to the authorization bill by Mr. Taylor.
  Second, there is no explicit language in the appropriation 
prohibiting the use of volunteers. This is important to ensure the 
survey is conducted by professional and properly trained individuals. 
This issue was the subject of an authorizing amendment by Mr. Tauzin.
  Third, there is no language prohibiting other Federal agencies from 
using information collected under the survey pertaining to private land 
unless the landowner has access to the information, as well as a 
detailed description of the manner in which it was collected, and an 
opportunity to dispute its accuracy.
  This issue was the subject of an additional authorizing amendment by 
Mr. Tauzin. All three of the amendments I have mentioned were approved 
by the House last fall, but are not adequately addressed here in this 
appropriations bill.
  An additional concern is the degree of centralized power which the 
National Biological Survey gives to the Secretary of the Interior.
  The NBS is clearly a method to create a free standing bureau with 
independent scientists who are not subject to review, criticism, or 
questions. By taking the scientific activities of seven different 
Interior Department bureaus and combining them into one entity that 
functions pursuant to nothing more than a secretarial order, we foster 
a tremendous concentration of power and increase the opportunity for 
abuse.
  Lets make no mistake about what we are doing here if we approve this 
appropriation. We are ceding congressional control and direction of 
this program to the Secretary of Interior. In essence, Congress will 
have failed the citizens in its oversight duties.
  How much do we really know about the National Biological Survey? A 
major complaint from many is the lack of information on the NBS. The 
Interior Department has put out broad and vague statements, but 
specifics and details are lacking.
  One interesting aspect is the fact that a number of high ranking 
individuals in the NBS previously worked in the National Landmarks 
Program of the National Park Service. This program has been put on hold 
due to gross mismanagement. An inspector general's audit found that the 
property rights of at least 2,800 private landowners were infringed 
upon. Many properties were trespassed upon and designated as landmarks 
without the landowners knowledge. Past histories like this are 
precisely why Congress needs to be closely involved in the 
implementation of a program like the NBS.
  Finally, there is a reason why the Secretary of Interior wants this 
National Biological Survey so badly. It deals with much more than 
merely counting the number of plants and animals. This is a power grab, 
and it is a back door attempt to expand the sweep of the Endangered 
Species Act prior to its reauthorization.
  The National Biological Survey empowers bureaucrats and environmental 
crusaders. I believe that it marks another milestone on the road to 
diminished private property rights.
  The data collected is not going to sit in a file drawer somewhere, it 
is going to be used to justify vast restrictions on the rights of 
property owners. At least 60 percent of this country's land base is 
owned by private individuals. In order to inventory the entire Nation's 
resources, private property rights will be compromised.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for Congress to look at these issues 1 
year at a time. We must ask ourselves, where this program is headed if 
we do not reign it in now. Where will it be 5 years from now. If we 
allow this unauthorized appropriation today, we are likely to find 
ourselves funding a far larger program with far greater powers in only 
a few short years.
  I ask my colleague to join me in opposing this unauthorized 
appropriation. When this amendment passes, we will then work to restore 
the proper level of funding to those agencies of Interior that should 
be continuing research and survey programs.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the purposes of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]. I can understand that he would 
like to have the bill creating the National Biological Survey enacted 
legislatively, and I would, too. That does not mean, however, that that 
portion of the National Biological Survey which is in existence and is 
operating is not operating pursuant to authority. The Secretary of the 
Interior has the right to reorganize this department or any of its 
agencies.

                              {time}  1320

  He has done that.
  The appropriations that are provided in this bill are directed solely 
for those portions of the operation which are authorized.
  Second, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes to kill the 
biological survey and to transfer the money to the respective agencies 
for rehiring their scientists who were transferred to the biological 
survey. That is impossible, not impossible, but it is unwarranted under 
this bill.
  If the House is interested in this committee adhering to its 602(b) 
allocation, and the bill has been brought to the floor under its 602(b) 
allocation, it will vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Under the peculiar allocation of outlays that emerges under the 
various budget caps that we have, there are different outlays that are 
authorized for different agencies. The outlays that are estimated for 
the biological survey are 40 percent. The outlays that are estimated 
for the operations of many of the other agencies are 80 percent. So 
that, in the event that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] were 
successful in his amendment, we would exceed our 602(b) allocation by 
$61 million.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to talk a little bit about the 602(b) allocation.
  I understand the problem where we have the accelerated expenditures 
that occur under the 602(b) allocation, but it is my belief that this 
can be corrected if the Allard amendment would pass through the 
conference report where we could reapportion and get those dollars back 
to those agencies and take care of the 602(b) allocation problem.
  Mr. YATES. I respect the gentleman's belief. But he overlooks 
reality.
  We are going to have to negotiate with the Senate and the Senate is 
going to be very limited in the outlays that it can approve, and I 
would doubt that, based on my years of conferring with the Senate, that 
would be possible, I may say to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALLARD. If the gentleman will yield further, but the gentleman 
would concede there is a possibility the Senate could go along with 
this since the conference committee has not reported, and that could 
possibly be worked out in the conference committee?
  Mr. YATES. The gentleman will not concede that at all. As I indicted, 
I know what the Senate is likely to do, and it is likely to restrict 
the amount of outlays to the extent that it can that are available for 
some House recommended programs. We will have to accept some of the 
Senate recommended programs. We will have to compromise on programs 
that we have approved in the House.
  The first thing the Senate will do in its bill, and the gentleman 
ought to just take a look at the Senate bill as it comes out, is pay no 
attention to some of the projects that the House has approved for land 
acquisitions, for example. They will have superimposed in the place of 
the House acquisitions the acquisitions that their Senators have 
recommended. So we will have to bargain with the Senate on an equal 
distribution of those projects.
  They will all have varying outlays.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. YATES. You are placing upon the conferees an almost impossible 
task when you say that we cannot come to an agreement on a disparity of 
40 percent in outlays. So I urge the House to reject the allard 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, once again we are faced 
with a problem that needs to be dealt with in the authorizing 
committee. There is no question about the authority of the Secretary to 
do this reorganization. We have had 16 instances since 1950 where the 
Secretary of the Interior has done major reorganizing, 8 of them during 
the Reagan administration.
  Secretary Watt created the Minerals Management Service in 1982, and 
we are funding it. It has been in existence ever since he served as 
Secretary of the Interior.
  I would say at the outset I am no fan of the National Biological 
Survey, and it was language we put in in conference last year that 
restricted them as much as possible to protect private property rights. 
But I think there is not an issue about the Secretary's right to create 
this agency and to reorganize the functions.
  So restricting the money will not solve the problem. The agency is in 
existence. It has functions that must be performed, and all we have 
done in the bill is to provide adequate funding.
  Now, as the chairman pointed out, we would, because of the spendout 
rate, we would have a real problem if this amendment were adopted, and 
we returned the funding to the agencies which funded these functions 
prior to last year because we would be some $60 million short, and we 
are right up to the edge right now. When we go to the conference with 
the other body, there will be projects there that we need to 
accommodate, and the result would be we would have to eliminate a 
number of projects requested by House Members, many of them on my side 
of the aisle.
  I think the important thing here is that the question of 
authorization is not an issue, or the right of the Secretary to 
reorganize. It has been done, and clearly under the statute he can do 
so.
  I think if the gentleman, with his amendment, wants to eliminate 
this, it should be done through the authorizing process, but in the 
meantime, it is de facto administrative function, and we have to fund 
it to insure that appropriate ongoing activities are taken care of.
  I again would emphasize that we in the bill have restricted the 
ability of the NBS to violate private property rights, and the 
Secretary clearly, in his statements, has been in agreement, and so 
that every effort exists within the language of the bill to insure that 
in no way does this impinge on the individuals and their rights to 
their property, and it is just simply a case that we have to provide 
the funding to do a function that is perfectly within the law.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
this amendment and amendments thereto terminate in 40 minutes, 20 
minutes to be allocated to the gentleman's side and 20 minutes to our 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. 20 minutes on each side is the request.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not 
hear the gentleman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my request was 
for 40 minutes, 20 minutes on your side and 20 minutes on our side.
  Mr. YATES. We have already talked for 40 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has the floor. He 
has reserved the right to object.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
understand that what the gentleman is asking is 20 minutes to each 
side, with the time controlled by whom?
  Mr. YATES. By the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] on your side 
and by me on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] will control 
20 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will control 20 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is the request 
for this or any other amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The request is for this or any amendment thereto.
  Mr. YATES. That is right.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Allard amendment. First, let 
me say I think it is rather unusual to say the least that the chairman, 
the respected chairman, and the respected ranking member are standing 
up asking you not to vote for the Allard amendment, because it will not 
allow them to spend more money. I think that, to me, is the No. 1 
reason that you ought to vote for the Allard amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. YATES. It is not that we want to spend more money. We want to 
spend less money. Under our 602(b) allocation we spend a stated amount 
of money, and if Mr. Allard's amendment goes through, we will have to 
spend another $61 million.
  Mr. DeLAY. I think there is some disagreement there. But let me just 
say that this legislation, the National Biological Survey, is not 
authorized. Make no mistake about it, it is not authorized.
  Now, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] correctly states that he 
has tried to protect property rights and the rights of property owners 
in this bill. But this only covers 1 year of appropriation. This 
protection should be a permanent provision in the language authorizing 
the National Biological Survey. Private property owners should not have 
to rely upon the annual goodwill of the appropriators to include this 
language each year.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree completely, but it requires an authorization 
bill to make it permanent.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is making my point. We 
do not have an authorizing bill, we are spending money on a program 
that has not been authorized, and therefore we should not be spending 
this money.
  Second, there is absolutely no explicit language prohibiting the use 
of volunteers. We argued that issue at length in the bill that came to 
the floor. This is very important to insure that the survey is 
conducted by professional and properly trained individuals. This was an 
authorizing amendment last fall, presented by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Third, there is absolutely no language prohibiting other Federal 
agencies from using this information collected under the survey 
pertaining to private land unless the landowner has access to the 
information as well as the detailed description of the manner in which 
it was collected and an opportunity to dispute its accuracy. This is 
also another amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] that is not in this bill.
  All three of those amendments that I have mentioned were approved by 
the House last fall, but it was chosen not to place them in the bill as 
protection of private property rights.
  Of course, my concern, particularly as to Members on this side of the 
aisle, is the degree of centralized power which the National Biological 
Survey gives to the Secretary of the Interior. The NBS is clearly a 
method to create this program of independent scientists who are not 
subject to review, not subject to criticism, or not subject to even be 
questioned. By taking the scientific activities of seven different 
Interior Department bureaus and combining them into one entity that 
functions pursuant to nothing more than a secretarial order, we foster 
a tremendous concentration of power and increase the opportunity for 
abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the Allard amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Biological Survey [NBS] is a new bureau at 
the Interior Department. In October 1993 the House debated the need for 
the Survey, and passed H.R. 1845, a bill to authorize its creation.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and 
Aviation of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology I spent 
considerable time examining the need for the National Biological 
Survey. I stated at that time and I continue to believe today that it 
is critical to developing the scientifically sound information base 
required to make responsible policy decisions on protecting the 
Nation's environment and ensuring that future generations can enjoy and 
benefit from our natural resources.
  I would like to express my strong support for the National Biological 
Survey, which was created by combining existing biological research 
programs from seven bureaus at the Department of the Interior. The 
National Biological Survey will make Interior's biological research 
capability more cost effective by reducing duplication of effort, 
enhancing coordination, and the Department's scientific capability. The 
National Biological Survey is a good Government initiative.
  Let me remind by colleagues that the National Biological Survey is 
not a big new bureaucracy. It was created by Secretarial Order in 
September 1993 and is now fully operational. I have met with the 
Director, Dr. Ron Pulliam, and have been satisfied that he understands 
the concerns raised by the House during the debate on H.R. 1845, over 
issues as diverse as private property rights and scientific quality. I 
am impressed with the programs that are underway within the National 
Biological Survey.
  By eliminating funding for the National Biological Survey, as called 
for in the Allard amendment, we will be costing taxpayers money, not 
saving it. I understand the gentleman's concern that we are 
appropriating money for a program that has not been authorized. I would 
like to point out however, that the programs transferred to the 
National Biological Survey have been authorized by Congress. In 
addition, as I stated previously, the House passed H.R. 1845 a bill to 
authorize the National Biological Survey, and it is my view that the 
Survey, as it currently exists, is consistent with the views expressed 
by the House in that bill.
  If Mr. Allard's amendment passes, the money already spent to create 
the National Biological Survey will have been wasted. In addition, we 
will be doing great harm to a substantial portion of the research 
programs that support the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Cooperative State 
Research Programs that provide critical assistance to State fish and 
game activities across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Allard amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express strong support for H.R. 
4602.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 4602, the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and 
Related Agencies. I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Yates, the 
ranking member, Mr. Regula, and my colleagues on the committee for 
their hard work in crafting this legislation. I also want to 
congratulate the professional and associate staff for their efforts in 
support of this initiative.
  The bill appropriates approximately $13 billion for the Interior 
Department and related agencies which include the Energy Department's 
fossil fuel and conservation programs, the Forest Service within the 
Department of Agriculture, and Indian education and health programs 
under the administration of the Departments of Education and Health and 
Human Services. The appropriations fall below the amount requested by 
the administration and are within the 602b allocation established by 
the Budget resolution. Further, the agencies within the purview of the 
subcommittee legislation are expected to generate some $8 billion in 
receipts from oil, gas, mineral leases, timber sales, and grazing fees 
to name a few examples.
  I was pleased to have the cooperation of my colleagues in addressing 
problems and programs unique to Texas and the southwest border with 
Mexico. This bill acknowledges and funds initiatives related to 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement within the 
Fish and Wildlife Service. It also highlights the need for a border 
resource inventory.
  In addition, programs within the National Park Service [NPS] 
highlight the natural and cultural heritage of the southwest and help 
preserve its resources. These include the Office of Mexican Affairs of 
the NPS which serves to coordinate international efforts along the 
border; funding for the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, a 
monument to international peace and border folk arts; resource 
protection at Big Bend National Park; a study of the Camino Real trail 
and Spanish colonial missions in West Texas and New Mexico; and land 
acquisition at Palo Alto Battlefield in South Texas to help document 
the history of the Mexican War.
  Environmental protection is also addressed in the bill. This is 
especially true of programs funded within the Department of Energy 
which stress energy conservation in its research and development 
initiatives. I am pleased to have assisted in highlighting research 
needs in gas cooling and heating which are important to all consumers. 
Other research in the area of alternative fuels is supported by the 
legislation.
  Finally, I want to thank the subcommittee for permitting me, working 
with Congressman Torres and members of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus, to address concerns raised by the Smithsonian Institution task 
force on Latino issues. This task force made a number of 
recommendations regarding Latino programming and recruitment and 
employment goals for Hispanic Americans within the Smithsonian. The 
report accompanying the legislation encourages the Smithsonian to 
implement a number of recommendations made by the task force to ensure 
that the Institution reflect our Nation's cultural diversity.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman and Members, let us cut quickly to the 
chase. This is not a question of allocations under the budget 
appropriations process; this is a question of whether or not this House 
is ever going to face the issue of reauthorization of the Endangered 
Species Act. And whether Congress is going to face the issue of 
authorization of the NBS program.
  My friend from Washington said we are going to authorize the 
Endangered Species Act next year. It was up for reauthorization this 
Congress. The last time we reauthorized the act was in 1988, a 5-year 
authorization. Now, I can count and you can count; we should have done 
it this year. Why have we not reauthorized the Endangered Species Act 
this year? Why have we not had the debates on how that act ought to 
work and whether or not we ought to protect people in their private 
property rights and in their jobs as we go about the business of 
protecting species of plants and animals in our society? Why have we 
not seen a final authorization from the Congress on the Biological 
Survey? I will tell you why: Because the environmentalists meeting here 
in Washington in a room on March 4, a memo leaked out--we sent copies 
of it to you--they declared that those items were off the Congress' 
agenda this year. They did not want to have the Endangered Species Act 
bill debated before the House. Do you know why? They are afraid private 
property rights are going to be protected in this Chamber when they are 
not protected currently in the agency. They did not want the National 
Biological Survey bill to go to the Senate and then come back to the 
House. Why? Because this House agreed on amendments protecting private 
property rights. Those amendments are not in this appropriation bill. 
The amendments to make sure that public surveys are done first, to make 
sure private citizens have the right to know that good science was 
behind this survey and not volunteers with special interests in mind, 
to make sure that landowners had the right to challenge the information 
gathered on their private property. No, those amendment are not in this 
appropriation bill, they are in the authorization bill, which is dead 
on its way to the Senate because the environmental community declared 
on March 4 that it was dead.
  The environmental community decided this Congress would not be able 
to address reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
  Let me tell you, my friends: We have a lot of homeless people living 
in America. No one in this Chamber would vote for a law that said if a 
homeless person moved into your house tonight, that you had to move 
out. But if a rat, a bug, or a bird moves in your backyard, under the 
current Endangered Species Act and its regulations, you have got to get 
out, you have got to quit using your property, and nobody compensates 
you.
  Something is wrong with that in America. If we are going to have good 
protection of endangered species, we ought to have a good balance in 
the law. We ought to respect people and their jobs. People ought to be 
part of the equation, too, and private property, under the fifth 
amendment, ought to be respected, but it is not, not in this 
appropriation.
  We could reauthorize a bill, but no one would let us get to an 
authorization.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for 
yielding this time to me.
  I find myself, Mr. Chairman and Members of this body, in a very 
curious position because, as many of you know, I took a strong position 
in the debate we had to authorize the National Biological Survey. I 
have real concerns about it. In fact, I think that as it is planned by 
the Secretary of the Interior, it is misguided, headed in the wrong 
direction. I sympathize with the arguments that were made by Mr. 
Tauzin, who was so instrumental in many of the amendments we considered 
to the authorizing bill. I agree with virtually all the amendments that 
were proposed. So I find myself in a curious position because I rise in 
opposition to the allard amendment. But, I do so from a tactical 
standpoint.
  The chairman of this subcommittee was very, very willing to work with 
us in terms of trying to put language in the bill and report, that at 
least reflects the work that was done by this body when it stopped its 
consideration of the authorization for the National Biological Survey.

                              {time}  1340

  Let me just cite what is in this bill and in the report; the most 
important provision that we adopted, the one that caused, really, the 
leadership in the House and the administration to stop further work on 
the NBS authorization, is this provision in this appropriation bill:

       Provided that none of the funds under this head shall be 
     used to conduct new surveys on private property unless 
     specifically authorized in writing by the property owner.

  That is a very important protection for the private property owners.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, in our report language we say very clearly 
that the National Biological Survey funding is provided, and I quote, 
only to the extent authorized by law, unquote. Only to the extent 
authorized by law. We are very clear that we are not going to allow the 
NBS to do things that are not now permitted.
  Let me just finally say that a memorandum of April 5 from the 
Director of the National Biological Survey, to all employees, said that 
it is NBS policy that all employees needing to enter private property 
get the permission from the landowner or from his representative before 
doing so.
  Now I am not going to be content with a memorandum from NBS, and that 
is why we have put this provision in this legislation to make it as 
specific as possible.
  Let me say that I am very sympathetic to the goals of the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Allard]. I am very sympathetic to the goals that 
have been expressed by all of those who fought this battle on the 
National Biological Survey on the floor. I was with you is that fight. 
But I think that the chairman has done in the appropriation process 
everything possible to make sure that the will of the House, as it has 
been expressed so far, is being upheld, and I would hope we would turn 
down this amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
  (Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Allard.
  This bill contains $167.2 million for the National Biological Survey. 
This is a program that has never been authorized by Congress.
  We all remember the battle that took place in the House over the 
National Biological Survey. Folks throughout the country expressed 
their concerns about the validity of the NBS, the creation of a new 
Federal bureaucracy and the ability of the Federal Government to 
intrude on the rights of private property owners.
  Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee has seen fit to ignore 
the authorizing committees and fund a program that is extremely 
controversial and has not been authorized.
  This is a clear example of the Appropriations Committee running 
roughshod over the will of the Congress.
  The National Biological Survey gives Federal bureaucrats the ability 
to make decisions about private property.
  Don't think this is simply a Western issue. This affects folks across 
the country and sets a dangerous precedent. If we continue to fund this 
misguided program we are saying that the authorizing committees do not 
matter. The will of the House doesn't matter. That is very troublesome.
  Already today, we have heard folks talk about how lean this bill is. 
I would certainly agree. That is why I am so troubled by the fact that 
we are spending $167 million to fund a program that hasn't even been 
authorized.
  We have many programs in the Department of Interior that are being 
underfunded. The National Park Service is probably the best example. 
Yellowstone, Yosemite, and our other national treasures are falling 
apart. Clearly, we could use the $167 million for the National 
Biological Survey on a number of important initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Biological Survey is a misguided program. 
It should not be funded by the Appropriations Committee without being 
authorized.
  Support private property rights, support fiscal responsibility, 
support the Allard amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] and the reason I support it is 
this is no way to do the business of the House of Representatives. The 
Interior appropriation bill contains $167.2 million in funds for the 
National Biological Survey. Every nickel of this money is appropriated 
in violation of the rules of this House. After much debate last fall, 
Mr. Chairman, the House approved an authorization bill for the National 
Biological Survey. However the Senate has never acted, and no 
conference is in sight. Once the 167.2 million in unauthorized funds is 
stricken, if we pass this amendment, the appropriators and the 
conferees would then be free to direct that any of these funds be 
transferred to the biological research and survey activities of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the BLM, and 
other departmental bureaus which have traditionally performed these 
activities, or, if we did not do that, we could take this money, and we 
could use it for deficit reduction.
  Before the National Biological Survey was debated in the House, Mr. 
Chairman, it generated a great deal of controversy on issues such as 
property rights, scientific validity, volunteers, and the creation of a 
new bureaucracy. This issue is too controversial for the administration 
and the appropriators to simply forge ahead with an appropriate 
congressional direction.
  Supporters of the appropriation have argued on behalf of the 
administration and the survey that it is already authorized. I think 
this argument is ridiculous. If this were the case, why in the world 
did the House of Representatives spend so much time in heated debate 
trying to carve out some kind of meaningful direction for this kind of 
activity?
  Second, the Committee on Rules must know that these funds are 
unauthorized. Why else would they have seen the need to protect the 
National Biological Survey funds with a special waiver on points of 
order?
  Third, the administration cites several statutes authorizing 
activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, however there is no evidence that there is any authority 
for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the giant comprehensive 
inventory of all animal and plant life, a catalogue of the ecosystems, 
as it is referred to.
  I would encourage us to support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] and get back in order the way the 
House of Representatives is supposed to do these things.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] for yielding this time to me.
  The National Biological Survey is about information, and information 
is not bad or good. It is just information. As NBS opponents will 
emphasize to us, Congress will be making environmental policies in the 
near future that will be affecting tens of billions of dollars of 
property in Congress. In my judgment it is utterly foolish to suggest 
that we should make those decisions in the absence of complete 
information. A few million spent on NBS is a wise investment when we 
consider the decisions that Congress will have to make.
  NBS consolidates seven biological science programs. It makes them 
more effective, more efficient, and it just works a whole lot better.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, the National Biological Survey, and this 
is where I think this debate should really happen, in the authorizing 
committee so people can understand the essence of what this is all 
about; the National Biological Survey is developing new research 
programs that are more proactive at preventing future problems and 
problems with the Endangered Species Act. Its emphasis is on an 
ecosystem dynamics and restoration approach, and I think some of us 
should probably look that term up, ecosystems dynamic restoration 
approach. This research focuses on multispecies as opposed to a single 
species approach. This will reduce the perceived problem of stopping 
development or reducing agriculture because a small toad or rare ant 
happened to get in the way.
  Mr. Chairman, to my friends who are opposed to the NBS and my friends 
who are opposed to the Endangered Species Act, what the National 
Biological Survey will offer to us is a multispecies approach to this 
problem. Let me give my colleagues an example. I say to my colleagues:
  Suppose you find some rare ant on a farm or in a residential area. 
They say you can't farm because there's a rare ant there. Well, a 
multispecies approach will do two things. I don't know if there are any 
rare ants or not, but just in case, my colleagues, it will do two 
things. No. 1, with this national survey, in all likelihood, and it has 
happened already in the State of Maryland, they will find that rare ant 
in some other corner of the country, which makes it not rare. No. 2, 
that rare ant may not be that important in the ecosystem as a whole. 
So, therefore, under those two circumstances, with a study by 
multispecies with the National Biological Survey, we are much more 
likely to make intelligent choices as to what is really endangered and 
what is really important.
  Now the NBS also establishes a number of unique, and I say unique 
perspectives on Federal, State, and local government cooperation. The 
State of Maryland has become involved in the National Biological Survey 
pilot program, and what has happened in the State of Maryland; this is 
from the Department of Natural Resources Director:

       Knowing more about where species occur has resulted in 
     taking species off of an endangered species list for the 
     State of Maryland. The State of Maryland, as a result of this 
     pilot program, is proposing to remove ten species from its 
     list because survey work contributed to the finding of more 
     species in other places around the country.

  One word from the Governor of Maryland:

       Maryland offers an ideal opportunity to ``showcase'' a 
     partnership between a State and the NBS. We have made a 
     significant commitment to collection of field data, digital 
     mapping, GIS technologies, and coordination between State 
     government agencies.

  I want to make one comment about private property. The National 
Biological Survey scientists who do the surveys are required to comply 
with State laws regarding trespass and privacy laws. No one's private 
property rights will be violated. Property owners can only benefit from 
this particular information.
  Dr. Caldwell from the University of Maryland, Maryland's 
Biotechnology Institute, internationally known, says this about the 
biological survey:

                              {time}  1350

       The National Biological Survey offers an opportunity for 
     the United States to inventory and analyze the valuable 
     genetic resources of the environment. If an inventory is not 
     done within the reasonable near future, the loss of genetic 
     material without its having been described or characterized 
     will be a tragedy economically as well as ecologically, for 
     understanding and utilizing the complexity of our 
     successfully functioning ecosystem is vitally important to 
     the health of this country.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  The Chair states that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, we may ask ourselves the question, why are we debating 
this when the Congress has given the control of lands to the Forest 
Service and the BLM and the control of fish and animals to the States? 
Except for the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, State jurisdiction is 
not diminished by the existence of Federal authority under other 
congressional enactments.
  For our National Forests and our Bureau of Land Management 
administered lands, land use administration authority is vested in 
Federal land managers, while authority related to wildlife management, 
including the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands, has been 
reserved expressly by Congress to the States. The several States retain 
significant authority and responsibilities for the management of 
resident fish and wildlife species within their respective borders.
  Mr. Chairman, the report accompanying this bill states that the 
Biological Survey is designed to provide the scientific knowledge 
necessary to balance the compatible goals of ecosystem protection and 
economic progress. Unlike the NBS authorization bill currently pending 
before the other body, the appropriation bill is virtually silent on 
the role of States in the management of these resources.
  While some might argue that the NBS is only scientific research, it 
is research in support of a mission, and that mission is so vague and 
broad that it threatens to overturn the historical and constitutional 
responsibilities of the States. We should not allow the Department of 
the Interior to usurp the power of the States over fish and wildlife by 
granting an open-ended and undefined mandate to manage these resources.
  Ecosystem management implies that the DOI has authority over all 
biological resources. In fact, it does not even have the sole authority 
on Federal lands. Where is that in the statute?
  For example, the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over 
national forests, and the Department of Commerce has jurisdiction over 
marine mammals. The Department has tried to argue that NBS activities 
are a mere extension of an existing authorized function.
  This is from their letter, and they cite three very limited fish and 
wildlife laws in support of that assertion. But in fact DOI does not 
even have jurisdiction over wildlife generally, let alone all the plant 
communities that make up the ecosystem. The bill has addressed these 
and other issues in the NBS authorization bill passed last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends that we should not fund the NBS 
until this bill is enacted.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, there are strawmen lying all over this 
floor, devastated, mortally wounded and assassinated by arguments that 
have nothing whatever to do with the proposition before the House. This 
has nothing to do with authorized versus unauthorized expenditures. We 
have heard some crocodile tears on that subject. If that were the case, 
I would assume somebody around here would be striking the money for the 
Minerals Management Service which was instituted by President Reagan's 
Secretary of the Interior. Nobody got upset about that for the very 
simple reason that he had perfectly proper authority to do that. This 
is perfectly analogous to that. The Secretary of the Interior 
exercising his authority has reorganized his Department.
  May I also say that in this case the authorizing committee at least 
in the House and the House itself really are not vulnerable to 
criticism. We have acted and by a strong bipartisan majority we have 
approved this.
  And may I also observe that amendments which this House adopted, many 
of which some of us thought were not particularly wise and not 
particularly necessary but which this House adopted, are, so far as I 
know, without exception, being respected by the Secretary of the 
Interior as if they were the law. With regard to volunteers, with 
regard to peer review, with regard to access to information, and with 
regard to property rights, the amendments adopted by this House are 
being respected by the Secretary.
  And finally, I believe we have heard words, as we did before last 
year, like ``power grab.'' This is not even a debate about policy, 
never mind about power. This is simply the proposition that we ought to 
fund the acquisition of the best possible science that the mind of man 
can acquire. It seems to me that whatever one's individual views on the 
Endangered Species Act may be, whether we like it or whether we do not 
like it or whether we think it needs to be changed or it does not need 
to be changed, we would all concede together that our common purposes 
are served by the acquisition of the best possible science we can get. 
That is what this is about. It is not about policy, and it is not about 
unauthorized expenditures.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]. Striking $167 
million in funding for the National Biological Survey [NBS].
  When the NBS was debated by the House last fall, we passed amendments 
ensuring that Government bureaucrats would not trample the private 
property rights of the American people. Amendments protecting these 
rights were overwhelmingly passed by this House.
  The Senate, however, has failed to pass similar legislation. In 
addition, the private property assurances in the House bill only cover 
1 year of appropriations. Therefore, if we go ahead and leave this 
funding in tact, none of the assurances that we fought so hard for will 
be in place.
  Second, there is no explicit language prohibiting the use of 
volunteers. This is crucial to insuring that the survey is conducted by 
professional and property trained individuals.
  There is also no language prohibiting other Federal agencies from 
using information collected under the survey pertaining to private 
land, unless the landowner has access to the some information.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for the Allard amendment is a vote to protect 
private property rights. A vote against this commonsense amendment is a 
vote to let loose a new Federal bureaucracy without the guidelines this 
House is on record supporting.
  Congressional concerns must be addressed before funding for the NBS 
can continue. This will ensure that private property concerns are 
properly addressed. It will also contribute to deficit reduction making 
clear that spending for unauthorized programs will no longer be 
tolerated.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  This really is a step backward. This National Biological Survey is in 
place. I think that the administration and the Secretary of the 
Interior have taken a prerogative to reorganize the department in a 
more efficient way to, in fact, accomplish the various charges that 
they have within the myriad land-use laws, not the least of which, of 
course, are the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the BLM, 
and the many other agencies, the seven agencies in total and bureaus 
that are included in the biological survey task.
  It seems, Mr. Chairman, that there is a tendency to demonize the 
National Biological Survey, that somehow the accumulation of objective 
information about various species on public lands and private lands 
somehow is going to operate negatively in terms of affecting 
individuals and their property rights.
  But let me point out to my colleagues that the Office of Technology 
Assessment did an impact review, for example, of some of the problems 
that have been caused by some of the exotic and noxious species--just 
79 nonindeginous species--this century. They found that since 1906, 
through 1991, $97 billion was spent because of the impact problem types 
of these nonindeginous species. The types of species that need to be 
monitored and followed by the National Biological Survey.

                              {time}  1400

  In other words, this is not some farfetched environmental scheme that 
we have to find out about the problems with the endangered species. It 
is one that is very much a practical application in terms of our 
utilization. Have any of my colleagues ever heard of the medfly? How 
about zebra mussels? In other words, looking at what is happening with 
such species as the Africanization of the honey bee population in North 
America, another big problem. In fact, as they project ahead, they 
suggest in the near future we will spend $134 million more in terms of 
lost dollars because of the damage such exotic species cause. And the 
Biological Survey can and will give us new and current information, if 
we let the NBS work and get off our political high horses. We could all 
benefit. The data base for plant and annual populations simply isn't in 
place--when the Exxon oil spill accurred in the Gulf of Alaska we 
didn't have the baseline data to properly judge the before and after 
effects of the oil sheet. The NBS is needed to avoid problems and end 
debate with sound scientific information. Defeat the Allard amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the idea of using science in managing our 
environment, and I will do everything I possibly can to make sure we 
put an emphasis on the scientific approach to what is best for the 
environment. But in this debate, the bottom line is this: The National 
Biological Survey should be properly authorized, and all appropriations 
should be made subject to that authorization.
  Now, in the debate it was brought up that we have some problems with 
602(b) allocations. I would point out that since this amendment goes 
toward deficit reduction, it does not create any problems as it is 
currently worded with the 602(b) allocation.
  I would further point out to Members that the reason we have problems 
with the 602(b) allocation is because this legislation is unauthorized, 
and, because it is unauthorized, we have some problems with the House 
rules.
  I would also like to cite the written testimony of two important 
House chairman on the issue of whether the National Biological Survey 
requires authorization or not. But before I do that, I would just point 
out to the House that we had legislation before us last fall which was 
to authorize the biological survey.
  Now, if it does not need to have authorization, why do we have it 
before the House? And why did we have, in written testimony on May 1, 
1993, before the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman of the 
Committee on Natural Resources state that although he supported the 
National Biological Survey, ``I believe that the NBS can carry out its 
functions only if authorized to do so. Therefore, I request that the 
appropriation be made subject to an authorization.''
  Similarly, the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries in the same forum stated, ``Any new agency ought to be 
authorized by statute, and I intend to authorize it.''
  Now, I realize that Secretary Babbitt was not happy with the private 
property and other restrictions the House placed on the NBS last fall, 
and I realize that there is frustration that the Senate has not moved 
on any authorizing legislation. But that does not justify an end-run 
around the process.
  On the issue of private property, I would point out to the Members of 
the House that what little private property protection there is, it has 
only been authorized every year for just 1 year. So every year we come 
in and we have to go ahead and rebattle this issue of private property 
rights on an annual basis. We need to have something in law which gives 
us longer than a year before we have to come forward and begin to 
reestablish the issue of private property.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose of denying the assertions of 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] that authorization is needed 
under this bill. The opposite is true. This bill authorizes 
expenditures only for those activities of the Secretary of Interior and 
the NBS that are already authorized. Those activities are authorized 
under the reorganization plan that the law permits the secretary to 
fashion.
  The fact remains that we did not request a rule from the Committee on 
Rules for the National Biological Survey. We requested it for the 
National Endowment for the Arts because that is not authorized. We 
requested it for the Bureau of Land Management, because that is not 
authorized. We did not request a rule for NBS yesterday.
  I am sure if no rule had been given, that the gentleman's point of 
order would not have been sustained under the rules of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to the Allard amendment which would delete funding for the National 
Biological Survey Act. The goal of the Biological Survey is simple and 
straight forward: To collect accurate, scientifically-defensible data 
on the biological resources of our Nation. Period.
  Why is this important? Because Congress and our Federal agencies must 
make public policy decisions on a daily basis. If we don't have 
accurate data on which to base our policy decisions, then they will de 
facto be based on misinformation or politics. The Biological Survey, 
ensures that we have the knowledge to make decisions based on data, not 
politics.
  As we have all heard innumerable times, ``an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure.'' This is certainly the case with species 
protection. It is much less expensive, less time consuming, and less 
onerous on the local economies and communities that depend on healthy 
natural resources to act proactively to protect populations at risk. 
The National Biological Survey will help us obtain the scientific 
information needed to do this so that we can prevent species 
trainwrecks from occurring.
  Some have tried to characterize the Survey as being counter to 
private property rights. On the contrary. I own a working farm. I can 
tell you as a farmer what is most frustrating. It is the uncertainty 
surrounding whether or not there is an at-risk species on your property 
that may require special management measures. The Survey will provide 
landowners with this much-described certainty.
  Without adequate biological data, we will not have the information 
needed to take species off of the Endangered Species Act list when they 
have recovered and no longer need special attention. The Survey will 
ensure that we have the scientific information needed to make decisions 
on delisting species. A vote no on the Allard amendment is an 
endorsement of information over ignorance, and an endorsement of 
science rather than politics. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the Allard amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] in response to his arguments, see, I believe this was 
unauthorized spending. And if the House had moved ahead, I would have 
stood and made a point of order that it was unauthorized spending.
  Why was it necessary in the rules to waive points of order, if this 
was not in violation of those rules, in order to protect this 
amendment?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had explained that. We did not 
ask the Committee on Rules for a rule to protect the National 
Biological Survey. There are 12 or 13 different technical reasons for 
asking for a rule. There are specific reasons for asking for rules for 
BLM, for the arts, for programs that have not yet been authorized, even 
though the House has passed bills authorizing them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we did not ask for protection for the National 
Biological Survey. The reason we did not is that the Secretary's 
reorganization authority has been used by Secretaries of the Interior 
since 1950. James Watt used this authority to reorganize his 
department. This Secretary of the Interior has used his authority to 
place in existence the National Biological Survey, with certain limited 
functions, as he had every right under the law to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to quote from the Secretary of 
Interior's letter to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], two 
paragraphs. The first is, as to the authority,

       The Solicitor has provided a solid legal opinion on my 
     authority to create the Survey. That authority is contained 
     in Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1950 in 64 statute 1263. 
     Secretaries before me have used this authority to create the 
     former Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the former Heritage 
     Conservation and Recreation Service, the Existing Minerals 
     Management Service, and numerous other internal 
     reorganizations.

  It is well established that there is authority to do this, authority 
existing since 1950.
  The second paragraph from his letter,

       I share Congressional concerns about private property 
     rights. Individual property rights are a cornerstone of the 
     American law and culture. It is NBS policy to obey state 
     trespass laws, obtain permission to enter private property, 
     and share information obtained from that property with its 
     owners.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I took the minute just to point out to the 
House that the Committee on Rules did give a waiver for the 
appropriation of this program, even though it was not authorized. It, 
in effect, said it waived clause 2 of rule XI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in the general appropriations 
bill.
  The Committee on Rules did waive the rule against appropriating 
unauthorized funding for everything that is in the bill. They would not 
let us add anything, for example, to make sure that the agency followed 
the law in regards to the circuit court of appeals decision on 
modifications of habitat. But they waived for everything, including 
appropriating for this unauthorized program.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in winding up, I just again make the point that there 
is $167.2 million in this particular appropriation bill for the 
National Biological Survey.
  It is unauthorized dollars, and if it was not unauthorized, then why 
in the world last fall did we have this debate that went on day after 
day on a bill that we eventually reported out of this House over to the 
Senate setting up the National Biological Survey?
  I am convinced in my own mind that we need to have authorization, 
that it is inappropriate for appropriators to move ahead without that 
authorization. I will ask for an aye vote on the Allard amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, this program is authorized.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I speak against the amendment and in 
support of funding for the National Biological Survey. The NBS was 
created at the Department of Interior by combining existing biological 
science programs from seven authorized Interior bureaus. It is 
nonregulatory and nonadvocacy. The NBS serves as a source of solid 
scientific information for use by local communities, wildlife managers, 
and landowners. As we know, the National Biological Survey Act was 
adopted by the House October, 1993. Secretary Babbit is committed to 
authorizing legislation for the NBS. Currently, the NBS is operational 
and has integrated the seven scientific units. It is a more efficient 
and cost-effective method of operating.
  Mr. Chairman, there are strict requirements for NBS scientists to 
obey State trespass and privacy laws. This appropriations bill 
prohibits funds from being used for new surveys on private property 
without written permission from the owners.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment 
and to support science to improve our understanding of biological 
resources.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, again, I say to my colleagues, I, too, am 
frustrated about the concerns about the Endangered Species Act. But it 
is obvious, after the years that we have gone through this program, 
that we have got to have good science in order to make decisions. When 
we have bad science or the science is inadequate, then Federal judges 
take over. They enjoin the administration, and we have chaos.
  To take out the $167 million for the biological survey, which is 
money that came from seven separate entities within the Department of 
Interior and created a new, more credible program, I think, would be 
totally counterproductive.
  Again, I urge my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle to stay 
with the Committee. The Committee has done a good job here. Clearly, 
Secretary Babbitt had the authority to do this reauthorization, and I 
urge the defeat of the Allard amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado which would strike funding for 
the National Biological Survey.
  A comprehensive biological inventory of the entire Nation, such as 
that created by the Biological Survey, gives us the tools and 
information to understand and protect our ecosystems better.
  It prevents disastrous trainwrecks such as that which occurred in the 
Pacific Northwest and avoids wasting precious time and money.
  Every State now has NBS facilities, programs, and personnel which 
collect important information and conduct research we need now to avoid 
more of the resource crises we all should rightly fear.
  In supporting this amendment you are denying your States the ability 
to head off these crises.
  For these reasons I urge you to vote against this misguided 
amendment.
  (Ms. SCHENK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
continue to be amazed at the opposition raised on this floor to the 
National Biological Survey. The purpose of this Survey is and has 
always been to gather a scientific data base about the status of our 
biological resources so that all Americans can make intelligent and 
informed policy decisions. To eliminate funding for this important 
survey is shortsighted and foolish.
  A good example of the possibilities of the National Biological Survey 
is a recent agreement between the Department of the Interior and the 
California Resources Agency. They have agreed to cooperate closely in 
collecting, integrating, and providing biological data. The purpose of 
this agreement is to enable Californians to develop the kind of 
multispecies habitat planning we so badly need to avoid collisions 
between an endangered species and economic development. This is exactly 
the kind of research that the National Biological Survey is designed to 
produce. Under this program, private property owners, government 
officials, and others will have access to reliable information. Good 
data and good science are the underpinnings of sound environmental and 
development policy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Allard amendment.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado. As you will remember, when the 
House passed the bill to create the National Biological Survey, there 
was concern on both sides of the aisle about what we were in fact 
doing. Many proponents espoused the Survey as nothing more than an 
inventory of flora and fauna--innocently performed in the great 
American spirit of voluntarism.
  Fortunately, the majority of us in this body realized that the thrust 
of this legislation and the so-called voluntarism amounted to nothing 
more than a further encroachment on the rights of private property 
owners and yet another sanctioning of federally approved land-use 
management proposals. Hasn't the Federal Government done enough in the 
way of imposing on landowners and their property. It's time that 
Congress respect the wishes of our constituents and stop this land grab 
by the Department of the Interior. I have no doubt that the agenda of 
the bureaucrats and the left-wing, radical environmentalists within the 
Department of the Interior want to make its so costly to be a 
developer, or a farmer, or a rancher, or a miner, or a timber 
harvester, that the only choice is to shut down and halt all activity. 
The imposition of more and more costly requirements and regulations to 
comply with Federal mandates and guidelines is, indeed, making this a 
reality.
  I am deeply disturbed by a proposed new government bureaucracy that 
U.S. Interior Secretary Babbitt wants to set up which will count and 
monitor every species of plant and animal nationwide. Initiated by 
radical preservationist groups, the National Biological Survey goes far 
beyond counting plants and animals and may prove to be a private 
property owner's worst nightmare. Ultimately, a National Biological 
Survey will lead to the establishment of a militant, ``eco-police'' 
force with little regard for the constitutional protections of private 
property ownership.
  I fear the day may come when a government bureaucrat will step on 
your land and shut down your operation--or worse, seize your property 
in the name of environmental protection. Perhaps you may have an 
endangered bug in your corn or cotton field, or your livestock may be 
grazing on a hillside where an endangered plant might be harmed. For 
many in southern Missouri who have dealt with agencies of government--
particularly in wetlands determinations--this is already a familiar and 
frustrating occurrence.
  A National Biological Survey potentially will cost taxpayers 
millions, enhance yet another unrestrained Federal bureaucracy, and 
give radical environmentalists greater control over your property and 
what you can--or cannot--do with it. The last thing Missouri property 
owners need is the Federal Government snooping around their backyard. 
It's high time Federal bureaucrats realized it's private property 
rights which have really become endangered. I urge my colleagues to 
keep in mind what Congress is doing as we continue to saddle the 
American taxpayer with more and more costly and burdensome regulations. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Allard amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member reluctantly expressed his 
support for the amendment offered by his distinguished colleague from 
Colorado, Mr. Allard, which would eliminate the $167 million 
appropriation for the National Biological Survey in the Interior 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. This Member had intended to 
support funding for the National Biological Survey as I support the 
effort with the conditions placed upon the conduct of the Survey which 
were approved by the House. However, Mr. Allard has made a powerful and 
persuasive argument about the need for authorizing the Survey prior to 
appropriating funds.
  This Member voted for final passage of H.R. 1845, the National 
Biological Survey Act, when it was approved by the House last October. 
This support was based on the benefits of the Survey as well as the 
addition of important private property rights amendments.
  Unfortunately, however, the Senate has not yet acted and as a result, 
the National Biological Survey is clearly unauthorized. If funding is 
approved without authorization, the House action on the Survey last 
fall would be completely meaningless and the various limitations, 
including the protection of private property rights would not be 
guaranteed.
  If the Biological Survey is eventually authorized, this Member will 
support an adequate funding level for the program. However, without 
such an authorization, this Member supports the Allard amendment and 
withholds support for the appropriation for the Survey.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 259, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--169

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Grams
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hayes
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ford (MI)
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lloyd
     Schumer
     Sharp
     Solomon
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1434

  Messrs. McINNIS, BARLOW, and TEJEDA, Ms. LONG, and Mr. TAYLOR of 
North Carolina changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about the mining patent moratorium 
contained in this bill, a subject which engendered still more 
misinformation from Members during general debate on this bill today.
  I am not going to offer an amendment to strike this provision from 
the bill before us. But, I want Members to know that the American 
Barrick example spoken about earlier by the gentleman from West 
Virginia as well as the ranking member of the appropriations 
subcommittee is much different than was characterized.
  Secretary Babbitt has been leading the disinformation campaign 
against the Mining Law in general and patenting in particular. It was 
necessary for American Barrick Resources to sue Mr. Babbitt in order to 
make him comply with the law, that is issue title to their fully valid 
mining claims for the statutory price per acre.
  Other Secretaries have sought changes in this law, but they did not 
act ``shamefully''--the words of the U.S. District Court, Mr. Chairman, 
as Secretary Babbitt did. The court went on to say Mr. Babbitt created 
a system of patent adjudication ``intended to delay.'' No matter what 
his views may be--and they are quite clear in this area--he has an 
obligation to follow the law until amended, yet he ignored this duty.
  What about the moratorium proposed in this bill? Mr. Chairman, the 
101st Congress passed a 1-year mineral patent moratorium for oil shale 
mining claims via this same appropriations bill, which President Bush 
signed into law. A lawsuit was brought by Fred Larson, in U.S. District 
Court in Utah, to force the Secretary to act upon his application. 
Despite the language in that year's appropriations act, the court 
ordered the Department to continue the processing of Mr. Larson's 
application despite the appropriations moratorium. The judge said it 
was proper for the authorizing statute to be amended, but that it had 
not been, and that this back-door way of revising the mining law was 
clearly illegal. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department did not appeal 
this decision to the circuit court and the 1-year moratorium was not 
renewed the following fiscal year.
  But a new Secretary is in office now and he very much wants this 
moratorium because he thinks it will keep him from losing another 
lawsuit. But, I'm not so sure about that.
  Now to the specifics of the Barrick case. Yes, there may indeed be 
upward of 10 billion dollars' worth of gold reserves in this block of 
now patented claims. But, Mr. Chairman, it will likely cost $9 billion 
to extract and process the ore to recover the precious metals.
  Furthermore, Barrick had paid far, far more than the $5 per acre 
patenting fee prior to receiving patent. As a publicly traded company, 
American Barrick's SEC filings can be easily examined. If one were to 
do so, one would see that Barrick had sunk about $1 billion into the 
Goldstrike project when it sought its patents. Barrick is a good 
corporate citizen in Elko, NV, in my congressional district, as are the 
other mining companies which have fueled the growth of this town by 
fourfold or more.
  Lastly, certain Members have decried the fact that no royalty will be 
collected from this large orebody, which was formerly part of the 
public domain, because of the antiquated mining law. But, have they 
stopped to ask how much Barrick would have paid in royalties if the 
deposit were in Canada rather than the United States? The answer, Mr. 
Chairman, is zero. That's right: Canada levies no gross royalty, and 
neither does Mexico, Sweden, and many other nations. Instead these 
nations tax the net proceeds, or profits, of hardrock mines, not the 
gross value of end products as would the House-passed bill.
  Mr. Chairman, Secretary Babbitt called the patenting of the 
Goldstrike Mine the ``biggest gold heist since the days of Butch 
Cassidy.'' But, we must compete for mining investment with countries 
that are blessed with prospective geology, as is the western United 
States. The gold heist we are looking at is stealing of mineral 
investment that would have gone into lands by nations in Latin America, 
Asia, and elsewhere because they recognize what we do not. There is no 
free lunch. If we insist upon uneconomic royalty terms and regulatory 
environments for miners, and other industries, we will have only 
ourselves to blame when the domestic industry can't be found anymore.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Would not Barrick be able to mine without having gotten a 
patent?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. They would be able to mine. However, it would not be 
very practical for them to make those investments if they know that 
they would lose tenure or they would not be able to extract the 
minerals.
  Mr. REGULA. But would they not have had unlimited time to mine in the 
absence of a patent?
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I would say they would have had time within a 
reasonable amount of time. Again, there would be no incentive for them 
to do that if they knew they were not going to be able to mine.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by the county commissioners and 
county attorney and some farmers in Boone County, IN, that there has 
been an effort and an attempt in the works of purchasing 351 acres of 
farmland in that county by the Miami tribe of Indians in Oklahoma.
  This is farmland zoned for farmland, but in the application, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs has been advised that it is being purchased by 
the Miami Indian tribe to be turned over to the Federal Government to 
be held in trust for economic development.
  Now, they have been a little bit vague; the Indian group has been a 
little bit vague about what they are going to use this for. But there 
has been suspicion by a group in the county that they are purchasing 
this to build possibly a gambling casino which would be in violation of 
Indiana law. Indiana does not have casinos. But if this becomes a 
Federal tract and trust, they could build a casino.
  What I am concerned about, and I think none of us are concerned about 
the Indians buying this land; this is land that at one time was held by 
the Miami Tribe before they moved to Oklahoma, but if they are 
developing a casino in violation of State law and in violation of 
zoning laws and everything else, something should be done about this.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs says the Indian Gaming Act provides very 
strict laws for land purchase after 1988, but they also cite the 
statute. One of the statutes is the Federal statute 25, Federal 
regulations. I examined that. The Indians then would be exempt from 
paying any local taxes, paying State taxes, paying any of the 
encumbrances that might be issued by local government. Local government 
loses entire control.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs says, however, they will contact the 
Governor and local government will be considered.
  Mr. Chairman, well, I realize this is not within the purview of this 
committee, especially, but I do hope the committee will watch for 
things like this.
  If they succeed in Indiana, they are going to move into other areas 
and take over and violate the intention of local government and State 
government in gaming, if nothing else. I hope the committee will 
examine the Bureau of Indian affairs and question next year just what 
they are doing. Are they going to take over the entire country, and are 
all of our counties going to be taken over by this effort to violate 
local and State law?
  It is a deep concern of my constituency. Boone County, where this is 
located, is on an interstate highway between Indianapolis and Chicago. 
It would be approximately an hour and a half out of Chicago and about 
an hour out of Indianapolis. So this would very likely, if this were 
gaming, would be a great success there, but the local community 
certainly would not receive much benefit from it.
  So I do hope the community will examine this in the future.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan:
       Page 15, line 14, insert ``, reduced by $14,000,000,'' 
     after ``1,083,973,000''.

  Mr. DUNCAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
this amendment be limited to 50 minutes, 25 minutes to be under the 
direction of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and 25 minutes 
to be controlled by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is limited to 50 minutes on this amendment, 25 
minutes on each side, half controlled by the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan], and half controlled by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I am offering a simple amendment to reduce 
funding for one of the most expensive projects in the history of the 
National Park Service by $14 million.
  If this amendment is successful there will still be $11 million for 
the Presidio, which will be more than what is appropriated for 358 of 
the 368 national park units across the country.
  In other words, there would be only 10 national park areas out of the 
368 across the country that would receive more in operating funds than 
the 1,480-acre Presidio.
  Today, the National Park Service plan for the Presidio calls for an 
annual appropriation of $25 million per year. This is more than the 
total annual cost of all new park areas authorized by Congress since 
1980. Let me repeat that, without this amendment, the annual cost of 
the Presidio will be more than the annual cost of the approximately 30 
new park areas that Congress has established in the last 14 years--put 
together. In addition, the Army is spending approximately $15 million a 
year at the Presidio.
  This is a project which was debated at length when we considered this 
same bill last year, and little has changed since then. My amendment 
would reduce the Presidio back to the funding level of last year, 
fiscal year 1993.
  Let me give my colleagues a little perspective on this. The 
Yellowstone National Park contains over 2.2 million acres, the Presidio 
just under 1,500 acres. Yellowstone had 539 miles of roads, the 
Presidio just 60 miles of roads. Yet, the proponents of the Presidio 
project want to appropriate $25 million annually, while Yellowstone 
receives only $17 million.
  Mr. Chairman, my concerns with this measure are fivefold. First, it 
is a project that the National Park Service cannot afford. Second, 
while there are many natural and historic resources at the Presidio 
which should be preserved, there are also many which do not warrant 
Federal intervention or protection, like the pet cemetery, the Burger 
King, and others.
  Third, plans currently under consideration call for tenant-landlord 
expertise which the National Park Service does not possess and which 
would set a terrible precedent for the future of the park system.
  Fourth, the current National Park Service proposal calls for a 
Federal subsidy for the groups who would occupy buildings at the 
Presidio.
  And fifth, the plan relies almost exclusively on public sector 
funding from the Federal Government, with little or no participation 
from the city of San Francisco or the State of California, both of 
which, even with financial problems, are in better shape fiscally than 
is the Federal Government.
  Last October, the General Accounting Office reported that the Park 
Service plan would have a one-time cost of between $700 million to $1.2 
billion, and an annual operating cost of $40 million.
  The Park Service's preferred plan would have a total cost of at least 
$1.2 billion for construction and operations over the 15 year life of 
the plan.
  According to the National Park Service, the cost to the Federal 
Government, which includes the Army, the National Park Service, and 
other Federal agencies would be about $40 million annually, with the 
balance to be paid for by tenant occupants of Presidio buildings.
  However, to my knowledge the Park Service has yet to complete 
negotiations with any tenants, except the Gorbachev Foundation, or 
provide the committee with documentation of their estimates of rental 
receipts. Cost estimates for the private sector funding are highly 
speculative at this time.
  The Presidio is just a small portion, 1,480 acres, of the 73,000 acre 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area which is located in and around the 
city of San Francisco.
  The Golden Gate National Recreation Area has an annual operating 
budget of $10.5 million. The combined $35.5 million annual operating 
budget for the entire Golden Gate Park and the Presidio would be nearly 
twice as much as any other national park area in the Nation.
  The $11 million appropriation level that my amendment calls for would 
be adequate for essential public safety and resource protection needs 
at the Presidio. Yet it sends a clear message that Congress does not 
endorse the huge spending program advocated in the current National 
Park Service plan.
  My colleagues, no one in this House knows better than members of the 
Appropriations Committee the enormous financial problems faced by the 
National Park Service today.
  The Appropriations Committee had to cut nearly $40 million in park 
operating funds from the administration request. The amount available 
is inadequate to even cover inflation at existing parks. Yet, existing 
parks are already facing huge shortfalls.
  According to information provided to Congress, the National Park 
Service faces a $5.6 billion, 37-year backlog in major construction 
funding, a 25-year, $1.2 billion backlog in acquisition funding for 
previously approved projects and a $400 million shortfall in park 
operating funds.
  In the State of California alone, the shortfall for construction and 
acquisition at existing parks approaches $1 billion.
  Make no mistake about it, funding and staffing for the Presidio will 
come at the expense of park projects around the country.
  Several weeks ago, National Park Service Director Kennedy testified 
in the Senate that staffing of the 350 positions needed for this park 
would be accomplished by taking staff from other park areas.
  The problems of the impact of a proposal of this magnitude on the 
National Park Service budget are well-recognized from the top to the 
bottom by persons with an interest in the park system.
  The chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Senator 
Dale Bumpers, recently made this statement regarding the Presidio.

       * * * this is a highly desirable thing to do. But I must 
     confess to you, despite my very best efforts, I have not been 
     able to reconcile myself to these costs.

  Consider the following statement made by a superintendent of a small 
park area from a recent issue of the National Park Service Ranger 
Magazine:

       I am not about to argue the merits of the Presidio as a 
     resource, just the fact that when all our Servicewide needs 
     are laid out and prioritized, how can we agree to apply 
     limited resources to that facility?

  I want to make clear to everyone that I agree there are many 
outstanding resources at the Presidio and I support involvement of the 
Federal Government to preserve those resources, but there are also many 
resources which do not deserve the protection of the Federal 
Government.
  Examples of these items include a shopping mall, car wash, churches, 
gymnasiums, warehouses, pet cemetery, and a Burger King. These 
facilities clearly fit the definition of facilities where the Federal 
Government should not be expending its limited resources.
  Finally, it is notable that the plan under consideration calls for 
public sector financing to come almost exclusively from the Federal 
Government, with little or no participation from the State of 
California or the city of San Francisco as I have noted. Of course this 
has made staunch defenders of this plan out of both the city and State 
governments, but it is unrealistic. This is something we cannot afford.
  In the case of the Presidio, it is unacceptable to ask the Federal 
Government to shoulder the entire public financial burden.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's budget included $25 million within the 
Park Service budget for the operation of the Presidio. This money is to 
be used to continue the orderly transition of the Presidio from its 
activity as headquarters of the 6th Army to inclusion within the 
National Park System to occur on October 1, 1994.
  When the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established in 
1972, the Presidio was included within the authorized boundaries of the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In 1967 the entire Presidio was 
designated as a national historical landmark. The legislation directed 
that any and all parts of the Presidio that were determined to be in 
excess of the needs of the Department of Defense would shift to the 
jurisdiction of the National Park Service and Congress concurred with 
the recommendation of the Commission on Base Realignment and Closure 
directing the Army to vacate by 1995.
  What do we do with this property? This property is one of the most 
pristine, most prestigious, most valuable pieces of property in the 
United States. It overlooks the ocean on a big bluff. It has beautiful 
lands, beautiful trees. It is just an ideal property for a park. You 
cannot let it go to farmland, you cannot let it go to seed. It is in 
the center of a very populated area and is going to make an ideal 
recreation area when it is concluded.
  Orderly transfer of functions is now taking place.
  The amount of money that this committee put into the bill is exactly 
the same amount as was in the bill last year. The money is going to be 
used for the day-to-day tasks of maintaining and operating the 
Presidio. Reducing the money in this bill does not make any of the 
requirements go away. We have to manage the park, we have to maintain 
the buildings and roads and the hazardous tree removal. The structural 
inspections, environmental compliance, the museum operations, storage 
facility management, law enforcement patrols, fire and medical and 
safety services, inspections, property inventory and procurement--all 
of these activities require the expenditure of funds.
  The gentleman from Tennessee, for whom I have the most profound 
respect, in comparing the costs of this park with Yosemite, overlooks 
the fact that you are in the center of one of the metropolitan areas of 
the country, the San Francisco area. We have to take care of this 
particular park. It is one of the jewels of urban parks.
  We on the Committee on Appropriations are limited in what we can do. 
We are following the authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, we were criticized a few minutes ago on the last 
amendment because presumably we did not wait for an authorization. In 
this case we have the authorization, we are following it, and following 
the authorization requires the expenditure of a certain amount of 
money.
  No longer can we have the Department of Defense pay for these 
expenses. These are something that are now the burden of the National 
Park Service and the burden of the taxpayers as a result.
  I agree with the authorizing committee, it needs to be examining this 
issue and Congresswoman Pelosi's bill will soon be considered. In the 
meantime, the bills of the Presidio have to be paid. This money is not 
excessive for this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the ranking member of the National 
Parks Subcommittee.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Duncan amendment. I realize 
how dedicated my friend from San Francisco is to the Presidio but we 
simply cannot afford to turn this miniature city into a national park. 
There are certain natural and historical aspects of the park that 
certainly deserve protection; however, the Park Service has failed to 
present Congress with a reasonable plan to protect only those areas of 
greatest national significance.
  Currently, the Park Service faces over $7 billion dollars in backlog 
for construction and acquisition. At a time when the Park Service 
cannot afford to fix roads and housing in Yellowstone, or the unsafe 
electrical system in Yosemite, or when we need to correct health and 
safety deficiencies at the Statue of Liberty, or when we need to 
replace obsolete water and sewer systems in the Everglades, how can we 
expect to pay for pet cemeteries, bowling alleys and Burger Kings at 
the Presidio. The Park Service is broke and we will not be able to fix 
it until we start spending the taxpayers money more wisely.
  Yesterday, I met with some constituents in my office that want to 
build a rail line out to the Golden Spike national historic site in my 
district where the transcontinental railroads met in 1869. These 
constituents did not come with hat in hand; rather, they came to me to 
help secure a cooperative agreement with the Park Service so that these 
additions to this park unit could be paid for through private donations 
and through a local bond issue. These constituents realize that the 
Park Service is broke and they do not expect this Nation's taxpayers to 
bear the burden of these improvements. Where is the local support for 
the Presidio, where are the local dollars? If the Park Service plan is 
so good and the people of San Francisco want this entire area to be a 
park then lets give it to them. Let the city or the State run this 
park.
  The current Presidio proposal is fiscally weak and will wreak havoc 
on other national park units. I can promise you that the $1.2 billion 
required to run the Presidio over the next 15 years will lead to 
further deterioration of the parks we already have. Support the Duncan 
amendment and force the Park Service to come back to us with a 
responsible plan for the Presidio.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Duncan 
amendment.
  The Presidio of San Francisco is a 1,400 acre military base located 
at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It contains a 
combination of natural, cultural and historical resources which are 
unparalleled in our Nation. With 220 years of military history captured 
in over 500 historic buildings, natural beauty ranging from coastal 
bluffs to grasslands and forests, endangered species and abundant 
recreational opportunities, the Presidio is a very unique place which 
is made even more remarkable by its location in the middle of a major 
urban metropolitan area.
  In less than 5 months the Presidio will be transferred from the Army 
to the National Park Service to be administered as part of Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area [GGNRA]. This transfer is a result of a 1972 
law which required the Presidio to be transferred to the National Park 
Service when it was determined to be excess to the Army's needs. The 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area is currently the most visited unit 
of the National Park System, and the addition of the Presidio will 
provide millions of national and international visitors with the 
opportunity to enjoy and learn from this truly unique area.
  The National Park Service has spent the last 4 years developing a 
comprehensive plan for the future use of the Presidio. They have also 
developed a financial strategy to reduce the costs of operating and 
maintaining the Presidio through an innovative public/private 
partnership. Congress has already enacted legislation to provide for 
fiscal responsibility at the Presidio. Last year we enacted a bill 
(Public Law 103-175) to authorize leasing of one of the highest revenue 
generating elements of the Presidio, the Letterman/Lair Hospital and 
Research complex. Just yesterday, the National Park Service announced 
their selection of two prospective tenants for detailed negotiations 
for occupancy of 1.2 million square feet of office space. In order to 
reduce costs while at the same time preserving the rich history and 
natural features of the Presidio, existing buildings at the Presidio 
will be leased to generate income. The leasing will be done through the 
establishment of a public benefit corporation with expertise and 
experience in real estate and leasing transactions. This is the essence 
of H.R. 3433, legislation introduced by Representative Nancy Pelosi and 
cosponsored by 123 Members of the House. The Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Public Lands which I chair has held hearings on this 
legislation and a competing proposal introduced by the author of the 
amendment Representative Duncan. We have scheduled a markup on H.R. 
3433 for next week in the subcommittee and expect to have a bill on the 
floor next month.
  Representative Duncan's amendment would wreak havoc and destroy the 
ability of the National Park Service to carry out essential daily 
operations including maintenance, fire prevention, utilities, 
communications, emergency medical services and law enforcement. 
Although the amendment purports to save money, it would very likely 
increase costs to the taxpayer. First, it would lead to deterioration 
of buildings and infrastructure at the Presidio, which in turn make it 
more difficult to get paying tenants. Second, it would cut funding the 
National Park Service at the critical stage for the funding needed to 
make appraisals, prepare contracts and negotiate leases with 
prospective tenants.
  Members from both sides of the aisle, myself included, have 
rightfully raised questions about the potential costs of the Presidio. 
I take these concerns very seriously, and I have always been willing to 
work with Members and stand ready to address these concerns in the 
proposed authorizing legislation pertaining to the Presidio. Mr. 
Duncan's amendment offers no solutions or suggestions about how to 
address the complex issues of the Presidio transfer. In fact, a recent 
hearing in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
revealed that Representative Duncan's approach of selling off certain 
Presidio lands would cost up to $100 million more than the approach 
taken in Representative Pelosi's legislation.
  It is important to remember that the transfer of the Presidio to the 
National Park Service will be a significant savings to the Federal 
Government in comparison to its operation as a military installation. 
Members of Congress should know that the operation of the Presidio by 
the Department of Defense costs up to $30 to $40 million more per year 
than what it will cost as a national park. The average taxpayer will 
spend less but will gain more from an enhanced ability to enjoy the 
natural, historical and recreational resources of the Presidio.
  Several other points should be made about costs of the Presidio. As 
the accompanying chart demonstrates, the Presidio maybe the only unit 
of the National Park System for which Federal funding need declines 
over time. Again, this is due to the innovative leasing strategy which 
will result in increasing revenues to offset the need for appropriated 
funds. Furthermore, the public benefit corporation will accomplish much 
of the repair and rehabilitation of Presidio buildings through private 
borrowing instead of appropriated construction dollars. Seven out of 
ten dollars for site and building rehabilitation will be borrowed from 
capital markets instead of being appropriated from this Interior 
Appropriations Committee.
  The Duncan amendment is a disingenuous and simplistic approach which 
will neither save money nor protect the nationally significant 
resources of the Presidio. The issues involving the future management 
of the Presidio need to be resolved in the context of the authorizing 
legislation and not this bill. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise and strongly support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  It was mentioned by the chairman of the subcommittee that the 
Presidio has become the burden of the taxpayer, and that fact is 
exactly why I would like to support this amendment.
  Yes, this Presidio conversion to a park is going to be the burden of 
the taxpayers unless we pass this amendment and change the direction. 
We now have a $4.5 trillion debt in this country. The majority party 
supported, with the President, last year the largest tax increase in 
history, supposedly to do something about the debt when, in fact, we 
are going to add over $2 trillion to the debt over the 5-year period.
  This supposed concern by the President about the national debt is 
nothing more than a sham. We need to call it that. We need to look at 
it for what it is. This Presidio proposal is going to add to our debt 
in a completely unacceptable fashion.
  The Presidio, over the next 15 years--during which the conversion 
will take place to convert this, is going to add $1.2 billion to the 
national debt. If the city of San Francisco thinks this property is 
good enough to convert to a park, then let them pay for it.
  Focus on this bizarre contradiction:
  We are closing military bases all over the country, including the 
Presidio, throwing thousands of people out of work, depressing the 
local economies, arguably endangering our national defense. So for what 
are we doing this? So we can turn around and borrow more money we do 
not have in order to have more parks? That does not make sense, Mr. 
Chairman. I support the Duncan amendment.
  Look at these charts here. Let us look at what the chairman of the 
other body's Subcommittee on Parks had to say on May 12, 1994.
  Senator Dale Bumpers said,

       But in any event this thing obviously, this is a highly 
     desirable thing to do, but I must confess to you, despite my 
     best efforts, I have not been able to reconcile myself to 
     these costs.
  Let us look here now. We have a tremendous budget shortfall for our 
national parks. Let us look at some in California:
  Yosemite National Park: We have an annual operating shortfall of 
almost $9.5 million, and a construction/land acquisition shortfall of 
slightly more than $394 million.
  Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Park: We have an annual operating 
shortfall of $896,000, and a construction/land acquisition shortfall of 
more than $201 million.
  The Redwood National Park: An annual operating shortfall of almost 
$1.5 million and a construction/land acquisition shortfall in excess of 
$5 million.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, cumulatively for these parks throughout the 
country, we have a total shortfall of almost 7.5 to $9.5 billion.''
  Are we going to say, ``Put all of these existing parks at the end of 
the line so we can take care of the Presidio?''
  I will be passing out in a few minutes by congressional district what 
the shortfall is. I urge my colleagues to take a look at it.
  Support the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Laughlin].
  (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative 
Pelosi's efforts to ensure the successful transfer of the Presidio from 
military control to national park service jurisdiction.
  Ms. Pelosi's plan will reduce Federal appropriations by raising 
private capital for building improvements.
  It will provide the public access to 220 years of military history, 
natural beauty and abundant recreational opportunities.
  Mr. Duncan's amendment is not a feasible alternative.
  It does not take into account the significant, positive steps 
accomplished by the National Park Service over the last year but only 
rehashes old problems that no longer exist.
  I urge this body to vote ``no'' on the Duncan amendment which will 
obligate more taxpayers' money and vote ``yes'' to preserve the 
national treasure of the Presidio.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was just out there at the Presidio. I had 
a daughter, Nancy, graduate from San Francisco State, so I had an 
opportunity to look at the Presidio in a different light than I ever 
had before, and there indeed are, I say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates], some pristine areas that ought to be made into a park, and 
then there is a hodgepodge of all kinds of other areas that would never 
be considered for a park. And I sit on the gentleman from Minnesota's 
[Mr. Vento] Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 
and the gentleman from California's [Mr. Miller] Committee on Natural 
Resources, as does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], and we 
struggle all the time to try to figure where the resource is going to 
come from to protect the real jewels of our park system.
  Let me just point out to my colleagues a few facts here, that the 
National Park Service faces a 37-year backlog in construction funding 
and a 25-year backlog in land acquisition and cannot afford this plan 
which will cost $1.2 billion to implement over the next 15 years.
  I think what we ought to think about here is, yes, what part of the 
Presidio should we save and protect on the one hand, and on the other 
hand, what is it going to do to the rest of our park system? The 
National Park Service claims that the plan costs will be offset by 
contributions, and yet they have failed to sign a single tenant 
agreement. The $25 million National Park Service costs for this plan 
will be more than the total cost for all of the 30 new areas that have 
been established by Congress since 1980. The Appropriations Committee 
was forced to cut the administration request for Park Service operating 
funds by $38 million for 1995. The funding increase in this bill does 
not even cover inflation. Funds available are inadequate to take care 
of existing parks. We cannot afford to take on new projects of this 
magnitude when budgets are tight. We have to make certain choices.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it sounds almost like a broken record today, but once 
again this is an authorizing committee problem. There is a bill pending 
in the authorizing committee from the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] to allow an administrative unit to take over many of the 
functions here and reduce substantially the cost. In the meantime, by 
virtue of a bill passed in 1972, and I think it is unfortunate that the 
proponents of this amendment were not here in 1972 and could have 
stopped this from being turned over to the Park Service, but as a 
result of that law, the land is the responsibility of the Park Service.
  There are something like 800 buildings out there that have to be 
taken care of. There is no real authority to lease or rent these 
buildings. If we do not take care of them, the costs will be much 
greater later on. So we are simply recognizing that the land is there 
and that there needs to be funds to take care of it. It is in effect a 
small city, and the $25 million is a bare minimum. The committee scaled 
back the request, but we recognize that we have to have at least $25 
million to just maintain this facility until such time as an 
organization can be put in place by virtue of action of the authorizing 
committee.
  I wish that they would get this bill moved, so that this 
responsibility can be shifted into other uses for this park land. It is 
a magnificent resource. I think many of the suggested ideas for using 
it are good, but it cannot happen until there is an authorizing bill. 
Meanwhile, the park is there.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I point out we have passed an authorizing 
bill to provide emergency authority to begin the lease of the Letterman 
Lear facility. In fact yesterday, they selected two clients for 
detailed negotiations. We will move and are moving next week on the 
Pelosi bill, the major bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
would agree, if this could be done, we could reduce the cost to the 
Park Service.
  So I would oppose the amendment. We have to do this. I have to oppose 
the amendment. I hate to spend the $25 million, all of us do. But, 
nevertheless, the buildings are there, the facilities are there. It is 
full of streets that have to be policed because it is part of the city, 
because of its proximity.
  Let us hope that once the Pelosi bill is passed and the authority 
exists to have many different functions, that Letterman can be leased, 
and that we can prospectively vastly reduce the costs.
  Mr. VENTO. I would point out this is a park unit where in fact the 
total appropriations costs are starting out at $25 million a year. We 
expect in the 15-year period for them to decline to $15 million a year 
with the private-public partnership anticipated.
  Mr. REGULA. In the meantime, it is there, and we have to take care of 
it. As much as we like not to do that, $25 million is the minimum 
required to maintain these facilities until such time as we can have 
other functions. But I might also add, it cost a lot more when the Army 
had it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] to keep the Presidio from becoming the most 
expensive park in the National Park Service.
  We have to ask what do Americans expect to pay for in their national 
parks. I have a picture here of the only pet cemetery in the National 
Park System. Is this what the citizens of America expect to see in 
their national parks?
  I have here some of the over 400 residences and dormitories, totaling 
2.5 million square feet. Is this what the citizens of America expect to 
see in their national parks?
  I have here one of two Presidio bowling alleys. Is this what the 
citizens of America expect to see in their national parks?
  I have here one of two hospitals, totaling 800,000 square feet. I ask 
you, again, is this what the citizens of America expect to see in their 
national parks?
  Here, finally, we have the only Burger King in the National Park 
Service. Is this what the citizens of America expect to see in their 
national parks?
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to ask that question over and over 
again, is this what the citizens of America expect to see in their 
national parks?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, were not all of those facilities there when 
the Army had it, and did not the Park Service inherit all of these 
things that you have outlined here?
  Mr. ALLARD. The point I would like to make is this is something, if 
it is important to the city of San Francisco, local governments ought 
to pay for it. The Federal Government should not be in there dedicating 
these types of facilities as part of the National Park System. This 
does not in any way compare to the Rocky Mountains National Park in 
Colorado.
  Mr. REGULA. You did not get that from the Army either.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we reject the 
Duncan amendment.
  The problem with the Duncan amendment is it solves none of the 
problems that the supporters of the Duncan amendment have discussed in 
the last few minutes. In fact, it makes all of those problems worse. It 
drives up the cost. If the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] had 
attended the hearing on his bill before the Committee on Natural 
Resources, he would have learned that his bill adds approximately $100 
million to the cost of creating the Presidio National Park, as the 
gentleman from Ohio correctly points out, from the conversion from a 
military base to this national park.
  This is in fact a national park. There is nobody that disputes the 
worth and the value of the Presidio. What we have come up with in the 
legislation proposed by our colleague, the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], from San Francisco, is an ingenious ability to try to use 
those aspects of the former military base that can generate revenues to 
help the taxpayers of this country pay for the maintenance and the 
operation of these facilities as a national park, a national park where 
by the turn of the century we expect 8 million visitors a year to come 
and enjoy this.

  Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], has been 
working with the community, with the National Park Service, to develop 
a plan this is now in the bill before our committee, so that we can 
develop those revenues to offset the cost of this, so we can make sure 
that we utilize this land in the most cost-effective manner and at the 
same time hold on to the attributes of the Presidio that qualify it to 
be a national park.
  This has been no easy task. This has been a contentious task. But one 
thing that has been established beyond a doubt is that the proposal of 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], either of simply slashing 
the money or his sale of the properties, makes all of these problems 
worse in fulfilling the need to create this national park. In fact, 
what we realize is those properties and the city of San Francisco would 
not be sold for years, so they will sit there in the Federal inventory 
generating no revenue, no usage, deferred maintenance, additional 
costs, year after year, that will go to the taxpayer.
  If we follow the outline of the proposal by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], what we have is the most expeditious way to 
get to those properties generating revenue to help develop this park, 
to help maintain this park, and to allow the people of this Nation to 
enjoy this.
  I appreciate all of the rhetoric, I appreciate all of the pictures. 
They simply have nothing to do with the facts and the problems that are 
confronted in dealing with the Presidio.
  As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] properly pointed out, this 
was inherited from the Army. We are doing the best we can. We have a 
wonderful opportunity here for the people of this Nation to create an 
outstanding park. We also have a wonderful opportunity to relieve them 
of much of the financial burden. Mr. Chairman, we should vote down the 
Duncan amendment and support the proposal by the committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding.
  I must say I rise with no small amount of hesitation to discuss this 
subject. I have the greatest respect for my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelsoi]. I particularly admire her understanding 
of the process and the capacity by which she is representing her 
constituency by tapping this source of funds in such an effective 
manner on behalf of her community and the proposed park in her 
district.
  I further want to express my appreciation to our chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois Mr. Yates, as well as my ranking member Mr. 
Regula, during the appropriations process. They have been most helpful 
with me relative to some of the future problems I may have with parks 
in my own region.
  But, I want to make this point which is being made very well by my 
colleagues. That is that we have a national park system that is totally 
underfunded. Those parks operate in a circumstance where there are 
limits on the number of personnel that can be assigned to the operation 
and maintenance of these park units.
  Within those limits, constantly the Secretary tells us if we have to 
have more personnel for the Presidio or any other unit, then we must 
transfer them from other units within the system.

                              {time}  1520

  Now, over time, it is said we are going to get a lot of funding from 
the private use of these parks. That, I suppose, will pay for personnel 
eventually. In the meantime, we are faced with very real problems.
  In the very near term, this committee that is authorizing Park 
Service spending is going to be proposing to make Death Valley National 
Monument a new national park. The Park Service says they will have to 
double their number of employees as they double the acreage involved. 
This personnel change is from 70 to 140 employees. Where will those 70 
employees come from? Where will they be paid from? The FTE is limited. 
We do not get an answer.
  I must say that in Death Valley today, it is approximately 120 
degrees. Those poor employees are living in trailers without air-
conditioning. Yet, there is no money available for their housing in 
these very remote areas. It is very obvious we have a serious shortfall 
here. It is time that we begin giving priorities that reflect the 
American public's interest in the park system and not channel the money 
down one pathway alone.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco is one of our 
Nation's most significant historic sites.
  The base was established by the Spanish in 1776, was later controlled 
by Mexico, and came under the command of the United States in 1846. It 
holds the distinction of being the oldest continually operating 
military base in the country.
  In particular, Mr. Chairman, the Presidio holds special significance 
for Americans of Japanese ancestry.
  It was at Crissy Field that the U.S. military started the Military 
Intelligence Service Language School, just prior to our entry into the 
Second World War.
  The Japanese-American instructors and students at the school were to 
play a crucial role in our ability to fight the war in the Pacific. 
General McArthur's Chief of Intelligence estimated that their effort 
shortened the war by as much as 2 years.
  In addition, it was their contributions to the war efforts, along 
with those of the 442d Regimental Combat Team, that demonstrated to 
this Nation and to the world that Americans of Japanese ancestry were, 
in fact, dedicated and loyal Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that markup is scheduled next week on 
legislation designed to streamline the operations of the Presidio. That 
legislation will transfer operation of the Presidio from the Park 
Service to a public benefit corporation and is projected to save up to 
$400 million over the next 15 years. This amendment threatens to 
undermine that effort.
  The Presidio is a national treasure that must be preserved. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could engage the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, I wanted to just make a couple points. First of all, I have 
been to the Presidio with my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. I must say, 
this is one of the most beautiful places in the entire world. This is 
not a new issue.
  I would like to ask the gentlewoman from California, is it not true 
that the 1972 legislation that Congress enacted foresaw a day when the 
military would no longer need this facility and would want to switch it 
over to the National Park Service? Is that not correct? This is not 
something new that we have not thought about before. This is something 
that has been in place for a long period of time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, that is true. In fact, in the 1972 
legislation creating the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, there 
was a provision in there which stated that when the Presidio was in 
excess of the needs of the Department of Defense, it would indeed 
become part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and a national 
park. It is a national landmark now.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to also compliment the gentlewoman from California. 
She is doing an enormous amount of work and making an outstanding 
effort to try and bring private resources to bear to try and reduce the 
cost to the taxpayers. So I want to compliment her not only on her 
efforts on this appropriations bill but also for her work in terms of 
trying to get this project authorized. This is a national treasure.
  We have to look at the next 500 years, not the next 15 years. And the 
people of California, the people of San Francisco will be thrilled that 
they have had the kind of leadership that the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] has presented, as well as that of her 
predecessor, Phil Burton, who was responsible for the original 
legislation.
  No one could go to the Presidio and not recognize that what Ms. 
Pelosi is trying to do is correct and should be supported by this 
House.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns], one of the truly great Members of this body.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Duncan amendment 
to the Interior appropriations bill.
  I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his diligent work on this 
important issue. As a Member who has also experienced a base closure, I 
understand the gentlewoman from California's concerns and her 
commitment to her district. However, in implementing base transitions 
we should take care to not put the cart before the horse. The 
appropriations request for this bill does exactly that.
  Mr. Duncan's amendment presents an alternative that prescribes fiscal 
and conventional responsibility for the Presidio. His amendment 
allocates $11 million for essential public safety and resource 
protection. This allocation is more than adequate for maintaining the 
Presidio.
  This project has been troubled from its inception. The National Park 
Service hopes to make the entire base into a park, including many 
resources that they have no experience managing, or even any need for, 
resources like a shopping mall, a pet cemetery, warehouses, hospitals, 
housing, a golf course, and a Burger King. The current Presidio plan 
demands that the NPS become a real estate agent and developer. 
Obviously, they are unsuited for such responsibilities.
  Furthermore, despite spending millions of dollars over the past few 
years, the NPS has yet to complete a final plan for the Presidio. Nor 
do they have an alternative plan. They really do not know what they are 
going to do. They want to enter into leases for Presidio properties, 
but have yet to sign a lease with any tenants. Despite this, the NPS 
maintains that the plan's costs will be offset by tenant contributions.
  Congress cannot continue to fund projects that eat up much-needed 
funds. The Federal Government must take measures toward reducing our 
national deficit; we must look very carefully at each and every 
federally funded program, for in these times of budgetary crisis, it is 
imperative that Congress reduce funding where we can. We must reduce, 
or eliminate, funding for programs that are not vital to the economic 
well-being of our country. We must turn our attention to more fiscally 
responsible matters.
  Again, Mr. Duncan's amendment would not defend or eliminate the 
Presidio plan. It would simply reduce the amount appropriated. It would 
force the NPS to re-evaluate its plan for a national park. I support 
the Duncan amendment, because it presents a compromise that we can all 
live with. It maintains this natural resource, but it does so in the 
traditional manner, the horse is pulling the cart. The Duncan amendment 
shows the fiscal and conventional responsibility that Congress should 
exemplify. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, as is often the case in these 
kinds of extended amendments, practically everything has been said, but 
unfortunately not everyone has said it yet. So it is my turn to do 
that.
  Of course, the real question is the matter of financing in the 
facilities that we have. We have talked a little bit about the 
facilities that we have.
  We have a shortfall in the parks. We have a shortfall of construction 
that probably is in the neighborhood of between $5 and $6 billion, 
those parks that we already have that we are seeking to keep up. We 
have a shortfall in land acquisition of authorizations that have 
already been made and we are making them each day over in the 
authorizing committee of about $1.5 billion.
  We have a shortfall in the operations yearly of $400 million in terms 
of what we do with national parks.
  This colorful chart shows where we are with Gettysburg battlefield, 
Great Smoky Mountains, Everglades Park, Yellowstone Park, probably the 
most famous of all of our parks. And here is the one we are talking 
about now, almost twice as much money to do that as we are spending on 
the best park that we have.

                              {time}  1530

  That is for a park that we do not even need as a park. This is not 
1972. This is a different situation in terms of money. This thing does 
not have to be a park because we said so in 1972. It can be converted 
to other things. It needs to be converted to other things. This is 
absolutely the wrong direction to take, to spend twice as much on a 
park that should not even be a park than we do in taking care of the 
major or jewel park of our whole system.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] greatly and I appreciate what she is trying to do, but I 
rise in strong support of the Duncan amendment.
  I commend the gentleman for recognizing what apparently so many in 
this body just cannot seem to understand. The Committee on Natural 
Resources seems to have the attitude that they have not seen a park 
that they do not like. As we have seen in almost every appropriation 
bill that has come to this floor this year, there is just not enough 
money to do everything.
  NASA is very important to me, yet we had to set very stiff, tough 
priorities on NASA and the space station. We made major cuts. Yet here 
we are with a plan to transfer all this money to the Park Service for 
the Presidio. Approval of this plan flies right in the face of the fact 
that the National Park Service faces a 37-year backlog in construction 
funding. We have to set priorities. Vote for the Duncan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final minute to the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young], the ranking member of the full committee.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, with 1 minute I have to explain 
one thing.
  Let us go back to the history very quickly. The gentleman is correct, 
this is a park. It was passed in 1972. Although we did not envision it 
ever being surplused, it is and has been.
  The chairman of the subcommittee is probably correct, but let us go 
back to the amount of money we are talking about. This is a tremendous 
amount of money with a tremendous backlog. Remember, from 1980 until 
now the Committee on Natural Resources has created over 34 new parks 
which we do not have money for right today to operate the ones in 
existence.
  Again, I want to stress the Presidio moneys which we are 
appropriating today, and the ranking member and the chairman say it 
must be done, exceeds the Yellowstone, exceeds the Yosemite, 1\1/2\ 
times more in total cost to operate.
  I hope the bill of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] does 
pass and I hope we come back to this floor and have no further funding. 
I hear people talking about 15 years of funding for this bill, which 
would amount to a little over $400 million. Let us do our job. Let us 
turn this property back, as it should be, to the city of San Francisco, 
leave the fort area as a park, and keep that area, but let us not be 
burdening the taxpayer and neglecting the other parks in this country.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. I just want to point out that Golden Gate does cost more, 
Mr. Chairman, but Golden Gate has 16.7 million, Yosemite has 3.8 
million, Yellowstone has 2.9 million visitors, so on a per visitor cost 
basis Golden Gate is the least expensive.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman, what do 
they charge for admission to the Presidio?
  Ms. PELOSI. We are just now becoming a national park, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, so 
far the visitors have not paid one cent.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is not a park yet. It is still a military post.
  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, following up what the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] said, the Presidio has more visitors than all 
the visitors that were mentioned here, combined, combined.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is the culmination of many 
long hours of hearings, deliberation and care taken to advance an 
Interior appropriations measure that adequately safeguards our natural 
heritage in a context of demanding and competing interests.
  The chairman and ranking member are to be commended for their 
determination and for their accomplishment in meeting this challenge. 
Mr. Yates and Mr. Regula and members of their staffs--Neil Sigmon and 
Barbara Wainman--deserve our full appreciation for your efforts. I also 
would like to commend Judy Lemons of my staff for her work since 1972 
on the Presidio issue.
  Today, I rise in opposition to the Duncan amendment, Mr. Chairman. 
This is the same amendment Mr. Duncan offered and lost last year.
  The Presidio transfer will end over two centuries of military history 
to become part of the most visited park in the United States. Its over 
1,400 acres include the largest number of historic structures of any 
national park and it is the only urban park in the world included in 
the U.N. Biosphere Reserve. Its unique natural features and educational 
potential provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to create an 
extraordinary 21st century national park.
  It is essential to seek innovative ways to manage our Federal assets 
that save money while ensuring accountability. The history and national 
significance of the Presidio must be preserved as a testament to the 
growth of our Nation.
  As I mentioned when Mr. Duncan first offered his amendment last year, 
plans were well under way for the successful conversion of the 
Presidio:
  The Park Service has completed the planning process for the Presidio.
  A lease is now being negotiated for the major revenue-generating 
property at the Presidio.
  A legislative process is underway in the House and Senate to seek an 
innovative, cost-saving management mechanism that will reduce Federal 
outlays for the Presidio.
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 3433, as a cost-effective means 
for managing the Presidio. A subcommittee markup will occur this Monday 
on my bill, as well as one introduced by Mr. Duncan. At a hearing on 
these two bills, the Subcommittee on National Parks heard testimony 
that the Duncan bill would cost $100 million more than the legislation 
I have proposed.
  Financial and real estate consultants working on the Presidio have 
determined that H.R. 3433 is the least-cost option under consideration 
and would be less costly than:
  The Duncan bill which is projected to cost over $100 million more 
than my legislation.
  Traditional Park Service management, which is projected to cost over 
$400 million more than H.R. 3433.
  Mr. Duncan has no plan to actually reduce costs for the Presidio so 
he must resort to simplistic tactics that delay a process that was set 
in motion 22 years ago when, in 1972, Congress determined that the 
Presidio would become a national park. Delay is expensive. Every dollar 
cut now simply means that taxpayers costs will increase even more than 
the costs of the Duncan bill. Essential maintenance projects will only 
cost more next year. The Presidio is a national resource that should 
not be squandered.
  Mr. Duncan mistakenly assumed that Presidio lands could be sold off 
to sustain what he would leave as a coastal strip of national park. 
According to local zoning ordinances, no property at the Presidio could 
be sold. Any change in the local ordinance would take a minimum of 10 
to 15 years. The cost of increased security and mothballing of 
properties would only add to Mr. Duncan's growing tab for the Presidio.
  California's Governor Wilson wrote to Mr. Duncan expressing his 
opposition to the Duncan bill. In the letter, Governor Wilson stated:

       A sale of all or part of the Presidio as contemplated by 
     your bill has not withstood the rigors of close financial 
     analysis, nor could it ensure use of these properties 
     consistent with the overall plan for the Presidio.

  The conversion of the Presidio, on September 30, marks an 
unprecedented opportunity to reshape a natural and human-made resource 
into a world-class urban park and global center for seeking solutions 
to problems of the natural and human environments.
  Many of my colleagues have been helpful on this issue--Chairmen Bruce 
Vento, George Miller, Jack Murtha, Ron Dellums and Representatives  
Greg Laughlin, Ben Gilman, and Arthur Ravenel--all who were kind enough 
to contact other Members on behalf of my legislation for the Presidio 
and to urge them to oppose the Duncan legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the shortsighted Duncan 
amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, on October 1, 1994, the Presidio Army Base, 
located in San Francisco, will be transferred to the National Park 
Service. I fully support the transfer and conversion of this unique 
property for use by all citizens.
  A National Historical Landmark since 1962, the Presidio contains 
1,480 acres of irreplaceable historic, scenic, and ecological 
treasures. Located in a major urban metropolitan area and within the 
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio 
contains numerous diverse characteristics. These include native 
ecosystems, endangered plants, and open space trails. In addition, it 
is the only U.N. International Biosphere Reserve located in an urban 
setting.
  This is an ultimate example of successful base conversion. The 
transformation of the Presidio from military use to operative 
facilities for use by all Americans is a model for all to emulate. 
Centers for research and education, which will provide thousands of new 
jobs, will be established in the hundreds of historic buildings 
throughout the base.
  The conversion of the Presidio to a national park will make the 
unique resources of the area available for use by the millions of 
visitors, as well as residents of the San Francisco Bay area. It is 
imperative for us to conserve this exceptional span of property for 
future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, the funding included in this bill is essential to make 
this facility available and open to all. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment offered by Mr. Duncan.

                              {time}  1540

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 257, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--171

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (CA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Bachus (AL)
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Lloyd
     Oxley
     Santorum
     Sharp
     Solomon
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1602

  Mr. LEVIN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. STUMP changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: On Page 16, line 16, 
     delete ``$171,417,000,'' and insert, ``$165,123,000''.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before you would delete a 
total of $6,294,000 from the section of the bill dealing with 
construction funds for the National Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, I might ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] if 
on this amendment he would like to restrict the time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be limited to 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, 5 
minutes for the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and 5 minutes for 
myself.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, that is 
agreeable.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There are no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand what the purpose 
of the gentleman's amendment is.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I will try to explain it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $6,294,000 from the section 
of the bill dealing with construction funds for the National Park 
Service. Specifically, this cut targets $1,294,000 earmarked for the 
Allegheny Portage Railroad near Johnstown, PA, and $5 million for 
construction of the mountain music center on the Blue Ridge Parkway in 
Virginia.
  Now I am not going to get into an argument about the merits of the 
Portage Railroad or how this park got there. Our colleague, our former 
colleague, John Saylor, wanted a park there before he retired, and he 
got one. In fact, he got two parks. But I am going to question why and 
how the Government has pumped $25.6 million into a park that is about 
1,000 acres in size, most of it forested and one part of it a major 
highway.
  I want to question why it has spent that amount of money only a few 
years after Congress voted to cap expenditures at that site at $9.8 
million. Generally speaking, the Committee on Appropriations' list of 
earmarks this year was defensible. Still, employee housing in Alaska 
took a hit of almost $1.7 million in this budget, and money to repair 
the utility system at Independence Hall, which has been a national 
disgrace over the past 5 years, got cut by about $3.4 million.
  Mr. Chairman, with those kinds of priorities and a multi-billion-
dollar maintenance backlog, I question whether Cresson mountain is the 
best place to put our money.
  Now, the Mountain Music Center is a little bit different. It has been 
studied. The administration recommended it. The question is whether we 
really need a mountain music center in the National Park System and 
whether the National Park Service should be running such a music center 
in the first place.
  Over the past 3 years I have become concerned about what we are 
asking the Park Service to do. We have asked it to run a music center 
at Wolf Trap, we have asked it to engage in economic development at 
Lowell, MA, and Thurmont, WV. We have asked it to build and operate a 
number of highways across the country, including the Blue Ridge 
Parkway. On other occasions we have asked it to manage a tennis 
stadium, to act as a leasing agent for an urban park and to run a 
railroad.
  Is it any wonder why the Park Service is strapped for cash? The Park 
Service is in the business of protecting and interpreting sites 
important to the natural and cultural heritage of this country. I have 
real questions about whether mountain music will disappear from our 
culture without this $5 million interpretive center. I say let the 
private sector operate music centers like this and let the Park Service 
do its job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Allegheny Portage Railroad national historic site 
was approved by our committee upon the motion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. It is an historic area between Philadelphia 
and Pittsburgh.
  The legislature of Pennsylvania enacted a mainline canal bill that 
authorized a board of canal commissioners to design and construct canal 
systems across the State. And it is for that reason that Mr. Murtha 
came forward and asked for this amendment and the committee approved 
it.
  With respect to the mountain music center, this matter has been 
pending for years. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] is the one 
who has recommended it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Boucher] in order to tell the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] why 
the center is needed.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Illinois for yielding this time to me.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and would state in opposition to his amendment, 
that the Mountain Music Interpretive Center to be constructed on the 
Blue Ridge Parkway astride the Virginia-North Carolina border, would 
interpret the mountain music that is native to our area for one of the 
most popular national parks in the entire Nation.
  From the traditional music of the Blue Ridge Mountain came bluegrass 
music, modern country music, today's rockability songs and western 
swing. The music that was born in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia 
and North Carolina is now popular throughout the Nation and around the 
world. In every corner of the globe, one hears the American music which 
had its roots in the Blue Ridge. The music born in that region, now 
popularizes our culture in every nation on Earth.
  It is still very much alive in the place of its origin. Each year 
hundreds of bluegrass and other string band play this uniquely American 
music throughout the Blue Ridge communities in our Appalachian States.
  Mr. Chairman, this center has been a part of the Blue Ridge Parkway's 
long-range plans since the inception of that plan in the 1930's. It has 
been thoroughly reviewed at the national level.
  In 1988, at the direction of this Congress, the Park Service 
conducted an extensive study of the utility of the traditional music 
center in Virginia and North Carolina.

                              {time}  1610

  It was strongly endorsed as an outstanding means of enhancing the 
experience for the 22.3 million annual Blue ridge Parkway visitors and 
highlighting the unique character of the region which has contributed 
so richly to American life. The architectural and engineering work has 
been completed for this center, and the land has been acquired for the 
facility. To take the next step the administration has requested $5 
million for construction, and the committee has provided that amount.
  I would stress that this project has been very strong local support, 
both in Virginia and in North Carolina. The city of Galax in my 
congressional district has made commitments to the project valued by 
the Park Service at more than $4 million, so much of the cost of the 
project will, in fact, be satisfied with local funds.
  The appropriation is expressly contingent on the operation of the 
center taking place at no cost to the Federal Government. In fact, we 
anticipate substantial support from private foundations and by the 
States involved in order to provide operational revenues.
  The project has been carefully considered. It will make a significant 
cultural contribution. I is receiving strong support locally in terms 
of financial commitments, and over the long-term it will be operated at 
no cost to the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I strongly Oppose the 
gentleman's amendment and would hope that the committee would confirm 
this very thoughtful appropriation.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just in response to the gentleman there, 
the two things that I have problems with are: Why we put a cap on the 
park at 9 million and it has gone to 25 million and why we feel we must 
have this interpretive music center in this particular location.
  Mr. Chairman, the Smithsonian collects this kind of music, the 
Library of Congress collects this kind of music. It is not as if this 
music is going to be lost if we do not do that.
  Might be a nice thing to have, might be a nice thing to have in one's 
district, but is it something that is absolutely necessary in these 
tight budgetary times, and I think that is the question we have to be 
asking.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say I wonder where we are 
going to stop on these interpretive centers. We are going to do this 
one for mountain music. There is a proposal to do a New Orleans jazz 
park. Is jazz going to disappear if we do not do the park? Are we going 
to do a rap park? Are we going to do a rock and roll park? Are we going 
to do a country music park? I mean where is it going to stop if we do 
this kind of thing?
  This goes beyond what the Park Service is obligated to do or what we 
charge them to do, and it takes funds, it takes resources, from the 
legitimate mission of the Park Service, and we have heard over and over 
this afternoon how short those resources are. The gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] has had to struggle with trying to fund these 
things. He knows how short those resources are.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of time. I will stop at that point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate very much the arguments of the 
gentleman. There is no question but that we on the Appropriations 
Committee are called upon to finance new establishments and new parks 
that are approved by the Congress. This center has been approved by the 
Congress, as has been the Allegheny Portage Railroad. These are 
authorized projects. The place to stop them is in the authorizing 
committees. The Appropriations Committee receives these requests from 
the authorizing committees and from the Members from the particular 
areas. We thought these were worthy of financing. We have been holding 
in abeyance the project that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] 
brought us for years, and we think this would be like Wolf Trap, a 
performance center in the Park Service. The Kennedy Center is a 
performance center. This will be a performance center for folk music.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 282, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--146

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gingrich
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Leach
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     King
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Houghton
     Kleczka
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Sharp
     Smith (IA)
     Solomon
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1636

  Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, LIGHTFOOT, LAZIO, KING, LEVY, and 
McCANDLESS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. BACHUS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to deal 
with title I, not title II.
  I rise today to voice my opposition to the Bureau of Mines report 
language that is attached to this legislation. I am specifically rising 
to express my opposition to the current plan to reorganize the Bureau 
of Mines.
  On September 10, I and my colleagues wrote the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Interior, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] a 
letter, which I would like to submit for the Record.
  In that correspondence, we point out four or five objections we had 
to the proposed reorganization.
  First of all, it, in our estimation diminishes to a large extend all 
mineral assessment work, mineral processing technology research and 
health and safety research conducted by the research centers of the 
Bureau of Mines. If this reorganization goes forward, almost all 
research performed by the Bureau of Mines will be of an environmental 
nature.
  I certainly do not have any objection to that type of work, but I do 
not believe that we should ignore the primary customer of the Bureau of 
Mines to date, and that is the mining industry.
  I also want to express, and we did in this letter, our strong 
opposition to how this reorganization went about. It was under the Vice 
President's Reinventing Government plan, but part of his 
plan is to seek input from rank and file Bureau of Mines employees. And 
that was not done in this plan. It was a small group of executives that 
did this plan with the rank and file at the Bureau of Mines totally 
left out. And their input was not even sought.
  Third, and I would say that to my fellow Members from the South, 25 
percent of the mining in this Nation is done in the South, but under 
this proposed reorganization, there will not be a Bureau of the Mines 
office in the South.

                              {time}  1640

  They will all be closed. There will be no research centers in the 
South. That is removing, in my mind, access to the Bureau of Mines to 
most Southern States.
  Mr. Chairman, that will conclude my remarks. I include for the Record 
this letter:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1994.
     Hon. Sidney Yates,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our concerns 
     regarding the proposed reorganization and restructuring of 
     the United States Bureau of Mines. The reorganization 
     proposes to drastically alter the field structure, research 
     missions, and the mineral information collection and analysis 
     functions of the Bureau.
       This proposal runs contrary to the ``Reinventing 
     Government'' report's two central themes of ``empowering 
     employees to get results'' and ``putting customers first.'' 
     The Bureau's reorganization proposal was created within a 
     small executive circle and had minimal input from rank-and-
     file employees. Furthermore, the plan virtually ignores the 
     primary customer of BOM--the mining industry. In fact, the 
     Bureau has made no secret of the fact that the reorganization 
     plan was put together on the basis of political, rather than 
     rational, criteria.
       The plan proposes an almost total shift toward 
     environmental research as BOM's focus and the closure and 
     consolidation of field offices based on this shift. While we 
     support environmental research, we oppose actions which would 
     diminish mineral assessment work, mineral processing 
     technology, health and safety research, reduce and phase out 
     the Mineral Institutes, and eliminate recoverability 
     estimations, and comparative cost analyses which assist U.S. 
     mining companies in building export markets.
       We maintain that a congressional review is warranted before 
     any actions are taken to implement the current proposal and 
     substantial revisions should be made in the proposal 
     following such a review. As a result, we would appreciate 
     your consideration of the following two steps in this year's 
     appropriations bill.
       First, we would request the Bureau's 1995 budget should be 
     maintained at a level comparable to previous years. We 
     believe it would be unwise to make the $20 million dollar cut 
     in the Bureau's budget without exploring other options.
       Second, we request a congressionally-mandated moratorium on 
     the execution of the reorganization plan until a 
     congressional review can be completed. Such moratorium would 
     include a prohibition on the closure and consolidation of 
     field offices prior to the approval of the committees of 
     jurisdiction and the Congress.
       We thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact us if we can provide more information or be of 
     further assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Spencer T. Bachus, Terry Everett, Scott McInnis, Dan 
           Schaefer, Thomas Barlow, Robert Cramer, Earl Hilliard, 
           Don Young, Sonny Callahan, Barbara Vucanovich, Bill 
           Emerson, Michael Crapo, Charles Canady.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                            forest research

       For necessary expenses of forest research as authorized by 
     law, $201,780,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1996.


                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with, and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, Territories, 
     possessions, and others and for forest pest management 
     activities, cooperative forestry and education and land 
     conservation activities, $158,664,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by law.


                    emergency pest suppression fund

       For necessary expenses for emergency suppression of pests, 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That these funds, or any portion thereof, shall be available 
     in fiscal year 1995 only to the extent that the President 
     notifies the Congress of his designation of any or all of 
     these amounts as emergency requirements under section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That Congress hereby 
     designates these amounts as emergency requirements pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                         international forestry

       For necessary expenses of international forestry as 
     authorized by Public Laws 101-513 and 101-624, $7,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1996.

                         national forest system


                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, for ecosystem 
     planning, inventory, and monitoring, and for administrative 
     expenses associated with the management of funds provided 
     under the heads ``Forest Research'', ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Construction'', 
     ``Forest Service Fire Protection'', ``Emergency Forest 
     Service Firefighting Fund'', and ``Land Acquisition'' 
     $1,348,162,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1996, and including 65 per centum of all monies 
     received during the prior fiscal year as fees collected under 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, 
     in accordance with section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated and unexpended balances in 
     the National Forest System account at the end of fiscal year 
     1994, shall be merged with and made a part of the fiscal year 
     1995 National Forest System appropriation, and shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996: Provided 
     further, That up to $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     for road maintenance shall be available for the planned 
     obliteration of roads which are no longer needed: Provided 
     further, That funds in the amount of $12,000,000 provided 
     under this head in prior years' appropriations Acts for fire 
     management are rescinded.


                     forest service fire protection

       For necessary expenses for firefighting on or adjacent to 
     National Forest System lands or other lands under fire 
     protection agreement, and for forest fire management and 
     presuppression on National Forest System lands, $160,590,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That unexpended 
     balances of amounts previously appropriated for this purpose 
     under the heading ``Forest Service Firefighting'', Forest 
     Service, may be transferred to and merged with this 
     appropriation and accounted for as one appropriation for the 
     same time period as originally enacted.

               emergency forest service firefighting fund

       For necessary expenses for emergency rehabilitation, 
     presuppression due to emergencies or economic efficiency, and 
     wildfire suppression activities of the Forest Service, 
     $226,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds are available for repayment of advances from 
     other appropriation accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for construction, $191,740,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $70,341,000 is for 
     construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities; and $121,399,000 is for construction and repair 
     of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as 
     authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: 
     Provided, That funds becoming available in fiscal year 1994 
     under the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be 
     transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury of the United 
     States: Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, may be obligated for the 
     construction of forest roads by timber purchasers.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the Forest 
     Service, $62,131,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,252,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, to be derived from funds 
     deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, public 
     school districts, or other public school authorities pursuant 
     to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 U.S.C. 484a), 
     to remain available until expended.

                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 per centum of all moneys received during 
     the prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock 
     on lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States, 
     pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as 
     amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to 
     exceed 6 per centum shall be available for administrative 
     expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.

    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $89,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (a) purchase of not to exceed 
     156 passenger motor vehicles of which 15 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 148 shall 
     be for replacement only; acquisition of 79 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed two for replacement only, and acquisition of 14 
     aircraft from excess sources; notwithstanding other 
     provisions of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be 
     sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset 
     the purchase price for the replacement aircraft; (b) services 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (c) purchase, 
     erection, and alteration of buildings and other public 
     improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (d) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein, pursuant to the Act of August 
     3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a); (e) for expenses pursuant to the 
     Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
     558a, 558d, 558a note); and (f) for debt collection contracts 
     in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to change the boundaries of any region, 
     to abolish any region, to move or close any regional office 
     for research, State and private forestry, or National Forest 
     System administration of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture, without the consent of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States 
     Senate and the Committee on Agriculture in the United States 
     House of Representatives.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be advanced to the Forest Service Firefighting 
     appropriation and may be used for forest firefighting and the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction: Provided, That no funds shall be made available 
     under this authority until funds appropriated to the 
     ``Emergency Forest Service Firefighting Fund'' shall have 
     been exhausted.
       The appropriation structure for the Forest Service may not 
     be altered without advanced approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Office of International Cooperation and 
     Development in connection with forest and rangeland research, 
     technical information, and assistance in foreign countries, 
     and shall be available to support forestry and related 
     natural resource activities outside the United States and its 
     territories and possessions, including technical assistance, 
     education and training, and cooperation with United States 
     and international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this Act.
       No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be used to disseminate program information to private and 
     public individuals and organizations through the use of 
     nonmonetary items of nominal value and to provide nonmonetary 
     awards of nominal value and to incur necessary expenses for 
     the nonmonetary recognition of private individuals and 
     organizations that make contributions to Forest Service 
     programs.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money 
     collected, in advance or otherwise, by the Forest Service 
     under authority of section 101 of Public Law 93-153 (30 
     U.S.C. 185(1)) as reimbursement of administrative and other 
     costs incurred in processing pipeline right-of-way or permit 
     applications and for costs incurred in monitoring the 
     construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any 
     pipeline and related facilities, may be used to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation to which such costs were originally 
     charged.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by 
     Public Law 93-408.
       None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for 
     timber sale preparation using clearcutting in hardwood stands 
     in excess of 25 percent of the fiscal year 1989 harvested 
     volume in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to hardwood stands damaged by 
     natural disaster: Provided further, That landscape architects 
     shall be used to maintain a visually pleasing forest.
       Any money collected from the States for fire suppression 
     assistance rendered by the Forest Service on non-Federal 
     lands not in the vicinity of National Forest System lands 
     shall be used to reimburse the applicable appropriation and 
     shall remain available until expended as the Secretary may 
     direct in conducting activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 2101 
     (note), 2101-2110, 1606, and 2111.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Forest 
     Service is authorized to employ or otherwise contract with 
     persons at regular rates of pay, as determined by the 
     Service, to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as 
     fires, storms, floods, earthquakes or any other unavoidable 
     cause without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the 
     regular workweek.
       None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for 
     preparation of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms 
     of even aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee 
     National Forest, Illinois.
       None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used 
     for timber sale planning or scoping using clearcutting in the 
     Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas, 
     except for sales that are necessary as a result of natural 
     disaster or a threat to forest health, or for maintaining or 
     enhancing wildlife habitat, or habitat for endangered and 
     threatened species, or for research purposes.
       Pursuant to section 405(b), and section 410(b) of Public 
     Law 101-593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up 
     to $1,000,000 for matching funds shall be available for the 
     National Forest Foundation.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                         clean coal technology

       The first paragraph under this head in Public Law 101-512, 
     as amended, is further amended by striking the phrase 
     ``$100,000,000 on October 1, 1994, and $50,000,000 on October 
     1, 1995'' and inserting ``$18,000,000 on October 1, 1994, 
     $100,000,000 on October 1, 1995, and $32,000,000 on October 
     1, 1996''; and by striking the phrase ``$275,000,000 on 
     October 1, 1994, and $100,000,000 on October 1, 1995'' and 
     inserting ``$19,121,000 on October 1, 1994, $100,000,000 on 
     October 1, 1995, and $255,879,000 on October 1, 1996'': 
     Provided, That not to exceed $18,000,000 available in fiscal 
     year 1995 may be used for administrative oversight of the 
     Clean Coal Technology program.


                 fossil energy research and development

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, 
     $445,544,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $17,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of unobligated 
     balances from the ``SPR petroleum account'': Provided, That 
     no part of the sum herein made available shall be used for 
     the field testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of 
     oil and gas.


                      alternative fuels production

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Monies received as investment income on the principal 
     amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank 
     of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1, 
     1994, shall be deposited in this account and immediately 
     transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury. Monies 
     received as revenue sharing from the operation of the Great 
     Plains Gasification Plant shall be immediately transferred to 
     the General Fund of the Treasury.


                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       For necessary expenses in carrying out naval petroleum and 
     oil shale reserve activities, $193,956,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the requirements of 
     10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply in fiscal year 1995.


                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $824,585,000, to remain available until expended, 
     including, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     excess amount for fiscal year 1995 determined under the 
     provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 
     4502): Provided, That $283,199,000 shall be for use in energy 
     conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public 
     Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) and shall not be available until 
     excess amounts are determined under the provisions of section 
     3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4502): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public 
     Law 99-509 such sums shall be allocated to the eligible 
     programs as follows: $230,800,000 for the weatherization 
     assistance program, $23,339,000 for the State energy 
     conservation program, and $29,060,000 for the institutional 
     conservation program.


                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Economic Regulatory Administration and the Office of 
     Hearings and Appeals, $12,437,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                         emergency preparedness

       For necessary expenses in carrying out emergency 
     preparedness activities, $8,249,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                      strategic petroleum reserve

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $244,011,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $90,764,000 
     shall be derived by transfer of unobligated balances from the 
     ``SPR petroleum account'': Provided, That appropriations 
     herein made shall not be available for leasing of facilities 
     for the storage of crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve unless the quantity of oil stored in or deliverable 
     to Government-owned storage facilities by virtue of 
     contractual obligations is equal to 700,000,000 barrels.


                         spr petroleum account

       Notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 6240(d) the United States share 
     of crude oil in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk 
     Hills) may be sold or otherwise disposed of to other than the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided, That outlays in fiscal 
     year 1995 resulting from the use of funds in this account 
     shall not exceed $9,000,000.


                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $84,728,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     section 4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 
     353(d)) or any other provision of law, funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be used to enter into a contract for 
     end use consumption surveys for a term not to exceed eight 
     years.

            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private, or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       The Secretary of Energy may transfer to the Emergency 
     Preparedness appropriation such funds as are necessary to 
     meet any unforeseen emergency needs from any funds available 
     to the Department of Energy from this Act.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles III and XXVII 
     and section 208 of the Public Health Service Act with respect 
     to the Indian Health Service, $1,706,102,000, together with 
     payments received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 
     U.S.C. 300aaa-2 for services furnished by the Indian Health 
     Service: Provided, That funds made available to tribes and 
     tribal organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or 
     any other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (88 
     Stat. 2203; 25 U.S.C. 450), shall be deemed to be obligated 
     at the time of the grant or contract award and thereafter 
     shall remain available to the tribe or tribal organization 
     without fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That 
     $12,000,000 shall remain available until expended, for the 
     Indian Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund: Provided further, 
     That $351,258,000 for contract medical care shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided, not less than 
     $11,603,000 shall be used to carry out the loan repayment 
     program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act, as amended: Provided further, That funds 
     provided in this Act may be used for one-year contracts and 
     grants which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long 
     as the total obligation is recorded in the year for which the 
     funds are appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts 
     collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall be available for two fiscal years after 
     the fiscal year in which they were collected, for the purpose 
     of achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new 
     facilities): Provided further, That of the funds provided, 
     $7,500,000 shall remain available until expended, for the 
     Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall be available for 
     the transitional costs of initial or expanded tribal 
     contracts, grants or cooperative agreements with the Indian 
     Health Service under the provisions of the Indian Self-
     Determination Act: Provided further, That funding contained 
     herein, and in any earlier appropriations Acts for 
     scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided further, That amounts 
     received by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of 
     the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended, shall be 
     reported and accounted for and available to the receiving 
     tribes and tribal organizations until expended.

                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 
     and for expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles III and XXVII 
     and section 208 of the Public Health Service Act with respect 
     to environmental health and facilities support activities of 
     the Indian Health Service, $253,892,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds appropriated for the planning, 
     design, construction or renovation of health facilities for 
     the benefit of an Indian tribe or tribes may be used to 
     purchase land for sites to construct, improve, or enlarge 
     health or related facilities: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law a single 
     procurement for the construction of the Fort Belknap, Montana 
     health center and satellite clinic and a single procurement 
     for construction of the White Earth, Minnesota health center 
     may be issued which includes the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and the contract 
     shall contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 
     48 CFR 52.232.18.

            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902); and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian 
     patients may be extended health care at all tribally 
     administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to 
     charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under 
     the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-53) 
     shall be credited to the account of the facility providing 
     the service and shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian 
     Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act, except those used for 
     administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be 
     subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel 
     and transportation: Provided further, That the Indian Health 
     Service shall neither bill nor charge those Indians who may 
     have the economic means to pay unless and until such time as 
     Congress has agreed upon a specific policy to do so and has 
     directed the Indian Health Service to implement such a 
     policy: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds previously or herein made available 
     to a tribe or tribal organization through a contract, grant 
     or agreement authorized by Title I of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 
     2203; 25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a 
     self-governance funding agreement under Title III of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 
     1975 and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or 
     tribal organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the 
     final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16, 
     1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     relating to eligibility for the health care services of the 
     Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has 
     submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs 
     associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has 
     been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are 
     to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as 
     appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the 
     appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided 
     further, That the appropriation structure for the Indian 
     Health Service may not be altered without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That in fiscal year 1995 
     and thereafter (a) the Secretary may enter into personal 
     services contracts with entities, either individuals or 
     organizations, for the provision of services in facilities 
     owned, operated or constructed under the jurisdiction of the 
     Indian Health Service; (b) the Secretary may exempt such a 
     contract from competitive contracting requirements upon 
     adequate notice of contracting opportunities to individuals 
     and organizations residing in the geographic vicinity of the 
     health facility; (c) consideration of individuals and 
     organizations shall be based solely on the qualifications 
     established for the contract and the proposed contract price; 
     and (d) individuals providing health care services pursuant 
     to these contracts are covered by the Federal Tort Claims 
     Act.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

              Office of Elementary and Secondary Education


                            indian education

       For necessary expenses to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's 
     Schools Act as passed by the House of Representatives on 
     March 24, 1994, $83,500,000: Provided, That $1,735,000 
     available pursuant to section 6203 of the Act shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $26,936,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56, Part A), $12,713,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the annual budget proposal and justification for the 
     Institute shall be submitted to the Congress concurrently 
     with the submission of the President's Budget to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the Institute shall act as 
     its own certifying officer.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed thirty years), and protection of 
     buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 
     for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees; $314,454,000, of which 
     not to exceed $32,000,000 for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and 
     move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, and 
     Latino programming shall remain available until expended and, 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations.


        construction and improvements, national zoological park

       For necessary expenses of planning, construction, 
     remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the 
     National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise, 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                  repair and restoration of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of 
     buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution, 
     by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the 
     Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to 
     exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $24,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection 
     systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of 
     the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected 
     contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications as well as price.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for construction, $30,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     procurement for the construction of the National Museum of 
     the American Indian Cultural Resources Center may be issued 
     which includes the full scope of the project: Provided 
     further, That the solicitation and the contract shall contain 
     the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232.18.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for 
     replacement only; and purchase of services for restoration 
     and repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $53,003,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized $4,431,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $10,343,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses of capital repair and rehabilitation 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $9,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $9,878,000.

           National Foundation on The Arts and The Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $141,950,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to groups and individuals pursuant to 
     section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering the functions 
     of the Act, to remain available until September 30, 1996.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $29,150,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996, to the National Endowment for the Arts, 
     of which $12,750,000 shall be available for purposes of 
     section 5(l): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the Chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of section 
     10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the 
     current and preceding fiscal years for which equal amounts 
     have not previously been appropriated.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $151,420,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities, 
     pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for administering 
     the functions of the Act, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $25,963,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996, of which $14,000,000 shall be available 
     to the National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes 
     of section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the Chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                      Institute of Museum Services


                       grants and administration

       For carrying out title II of the Arts, Humanities, and 
     Cultural Affairs Act of 1976, as amended, $28,770,000.


                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Commission of Fine Arts


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $834,000.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (99 Stat. 1261; 20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,500,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing an 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Public Law 89-665, 
     as amended, $2,967,000: Provided, That none of these funds 
     shall be available for the compensation of Executive Level V 
     or higher positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,655,000: 
     Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a 
     rate equivalent to the rate for Executive Schedule Level IV.

             Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
     Memorial Commission, established by the Act of August 11, 
     1955 (69 Stat. 694), as amended by Public Law 92-332 (86 
     Stat. 401), $48,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1996.

              Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by section 17(a) of 
     Public Law 92-578, as amended, $2,738,000 for operating and 
     administrative expenses of the Corporation.

                           public development

       For public development activities and projects in 
     accordance with the development plan as authorized by section 
     17(b) of Public Law 92-578, as amended, $4,084,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Council


                       holocaust memorial council

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as 
     authorized by Public Law 96-388, as amended, $26,660,000; of 
     which $2,700,000 shall be for repair and rehabilitation 
     projects and shall remain available until expended.

  Mr. YATES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against title II?


                             point of order

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
paragraph on page 80, line 11 through line 14, regarding salaries and 
expenses for the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, as a 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] wish to 
speak to the point of order?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the point of order. I read from the 
statute, Mr. Chairman, and as I understand the point of order, it is to 
the salaries and expenses account of the Corporation. There are two 
appropriations, one to the salaries and expenses and one to public 
development. I though the gentleman might have been addressing public 
development.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, there was 
obviously a reference to the development funds. We did not seek to 
strike them under the point of order. We were advised that would not 
have been appropriate, so therefore we just focused on the salaries and 
expenses which are not authorized to the Pennsylvania Avenue 
Development Corporation.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Glickman). The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  Are there any other points of order?
  If not, are there any amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. crane

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crane; page 77, after line 19, 
     insert the following:


                         elimination of funding

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title for ``National Endowment for the Arts'' is hereby 
     reduced to $0.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a brief colloquy with 
our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  I would make a respectful request by unanimous consent that we could 
have a total of 50 minutes, with the time divided equally, on my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, do I 
understand the request is for 50 minutes, divided 25 and 25?
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is right, if the gentleman will 
yield.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman make that 40 minutes, 20 
and 20?
  Mr. CRANE. All right, 40 minutes is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands there will be 40 minutes, 
divided, with 20 minutes on each side on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto?
  Mr. YATES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CRANE. All amendments to my amendment, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. To the gentleman's amendment, yes.
  Mr. CRANE. Exclusively to my amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not new to this body. I have introduced 
it on previous occasions, and I am pleased to report that each time we 
have come before the Chamber the numbers supportive of it have 
progressively increased.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this time the membership might listen 
carefully to some of the arguments in support of it. Mr. Chairman, the 
first and foremost one that I have consistently attempted to stress is 
the fact that funding of the arts was an issue that was brought up at 
the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Charles Pinckney from South 
Carolina wanted to fund literature, arts, scientists, and it was 
overwhelmingly rejected by those people who crafted our Constitution as 
not a proper function of the National Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for everyone to listen to 
what I just said, because after we get elected, we are all standing in 
this Chamber and we raise our right hand and swear to uphold that 
Constitution, so help us God. My point, Mr. Chairman, is we have a 
constitutional obligation to abolish the National Endowment for the 
Arts, for openers.
  However, there are other arguments, too. If some are squeamish about 
my interpretation of the Constitution, and admittedly, we get 5-4 
decisions on the Supreme Court bench, and I am not insisting upon 
omniscience, but I am saying there is a track record and the history is 
there for any who want to review it, but second is the necessity for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, $170 million was spent by the NEA of public money to 
finance their chosen artworks last year. However, last year the private 
sector came forward with better than $9 billion, in contrast to $170 
million. It is not a case, Mr. Chairman, of killing the funding of the 
arts in this country.
  However, in that debate that occurred in Philadelphia, one of the 
points made was by John Page, the representative from Virginia. He 
objected to funding on the grounds that Congress might, he said, ``Like 
many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence and neglect a much 
greater genius of another.'' I think it is important for people to 
realize that the NEA gets about 5 times the number of requests for 
funding that it funds. Mr. Chairman, when they fund, they point out 
that that is a decided benefit to the recipient of that grant. He in 
turn then is able to marshal external support from the private sector 
for funding of his artworks.
  Mr. Chairman, I would argue that comes at the expense of the four who 
were turned down by the NEA bureaucrats. As a result, that is an 
inequity. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, there are other inequities 
that have come to light.
  Mr. Chairman, Jack Kilpatrick, under the Freedom of Information Act, 
found out that these were dance panels that were determining who was to 
get grants, and panel A gave grants to panel B, panel B gave grants to 
panel A, panel C gave grants to panel B, and panel D gave grants to 
panel C. In other words, if an artist is part of that good old boy 
network, obviously he or she is going to get funded. That is realized 
in terms of the distribution of moneys that have gone into NEA funding.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, here in the District of Columbia, which 
has less population than my congressional district, the District of 
Columbia got almost twice the amount of funding from the NEA of the 
whole State of Illinois, twice what Illinois got. Mr. Chairman, the 
fact is further that Illinois had more requests in than did the 
District of Columbia, but we were not the only ones short-changed, 
because the District of Columbia also got almost twice what Texas got. 
The District of Columbia got, in fact, 7 times what Florida got. The 
District of Columbia got almost twice what Pennsylvania got. The 
District of Columbia got more than twice what the State of Ohio got.

  In fact, Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia got more funding than 
the States of Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, North 
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming combined. 
The District of Columbia is the third largest beneficiary in this whole 
process.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to 
recognize, going back to John Page's arguments about denying qualified, 
talented people the benefits of funding in the arts if we introduce a 
bureaucracy making that kind of distribution, I think it is important 
to realize that so much of the controversy is raging still, 
notwithstanding what we assume to be a change of leadership of the NEA; 
and finally, that Jane Alexander as chairman would alter some of the 
obscene grants that have been made previously.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure many of our colleagues have read in the 
newspapers about the grant that was made to a museum up in Minneapolis. 
That art center, Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, funded an exhibit 
with public money that involved a performance by Mr. Ron Athey before 
an audience of 100 people. Mr. Athey a 3-member cast performed excerpts 
from his ritualistic work ``Exploring Modern Day Martyrdom as it 
Relates to AIDS.'' Athey is HIV-positive, and his work includes 
scarification and the use of acupuncture needles. That includes drawing 
blood on the stage, putting it on towels, and then on a clothesline, 
circulating the towels above the audience.

                              {time}  1650

  That triggered a lot of controversy and Ms. Alexander claimed that 
there was misrepresentation in the news coverage of that, but the fact 
of the matter is she got a letter back and it was from the Minneapolis 
Tribune. The letter was signed by Mary Abbe, the art critic/art news 
reporter.
  She indicated in that letter that traditionally she has been 
basically supportive of the NEA. But she did point out that Ms. 
Alexander's comments suggesting that they misrepresented what he did, 
and that included in her letter, she says, piercing his arm with 
hypodermic needles, drawing blood when he and his assistants pierced 
his scalp with acupuncture needles ``The head thing actually did 
bleed.'' said John Killacky, the Walker's curator of performing arts 
who booked Mr. Athey and staged the event up there in Minneapolis.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply mention this because this in turn has 
triggered a very considerable reaction in the other body, including a 
letter from Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma.
  In the letter, Senator Byrd demanded from Ms. Alexander answers to 
three specific questions:
  First, how does this use of NEA funds pass the test of artistic 
excellence and artistic merit, by which applications for NEA funding 
are to be judged?
  Second, in view of concerns about uses of funds that may be different 
from what is proposed in a grant application, why should the committee 
allow funds for grants that are not subject to strict controls which 
assure that the purposes stated in the grant application are indeed 
followed?
  Third, what steps are you taking, and do you intend to take, to 
prevent such unacceptable actions from occurring when the use of 
Federal funds, however small, is involved.
  Senator Byrd concludes: ``Without the benefit of your response that 
safeguards will be instituted immediatley to ensure that such grossly 
improper activities are not undertaken in the future, NEA funding for 
FY 1995 is in serious jeopardy.''
  Mr.Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Senator Byrd  
and Senator Nickles to Ms. Alexander as well as Ms. Alexander's letter 
to me when I raised a question about it, as well as the letter that was 
sent to Ms. Alexander from Ms. Abbe with the Minneapolis paper as 
follows:

                                                National Endowment


                                                 for the Arts,

                                                   Washington, DC,
                                                     June 15, 1994
     Hon. Philip M. Crane,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Crane: Much of my time these past eight 
     months has been spent travelling across the country talking 
     with people about the National Endowment for the Arts. I have 
     been to 36 states so far and seen the wonderful arts 
     organizations the Endowment has made possible in areas of the 
     United States from the most rural to the most dense inner 
     city: organizations which build communities through the 
     celebration of heritage, or that address the needs of at-risk 
     youth in after-school programs or go into the classrooms to 
     teach music, or painting.
       The National Endowment for the Arts is an unqualified 
     success as an agency. For every dollar we award we leverage 
     11 to 20 from other public and private sources in a 
     community. This is no handout by the federal government but 
     an investment by the American taxpayer of 65 cents per 
     person, per year in the vitality of our communities both 
     economically and creatively.
       That is why it is so distressing to me to read mailings 
     from the Christian Action Network and other groups which so 
     distort and misrepresent what we at the Endowment do. Let me 
     set the record straight with regard to inaccurate accounts 
     currently being circulated by these groups.
       The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, one of the 
     oldest (1879) and most prestigious museums in the country, 
     received a $104,500 matching grant in March 1993, to support 
     a season of more than 100 performing arts events.
       On March 5, 1994, the Walker Art Center hosted a one night 
     performance by Ron Athey before an audience of 100 people. 
     Mr. Athey and a three-member cast performed excerpts from his 
     ritualistic work exploring modern day martydom as it relates 
     to AIDS. Athey is HIV-positive and his work includes 
     scarification and the use of acupuncture needles.
       There was absolutely no risk to the audience, the 
     performers, or the crew backstage. The Walker Art Center took 
     all health precautions necessary and the Minnesota Health 
     Department concurred.
       There was no blood dripping from towels as erroneously 
     reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune three weeks after 
     the event took place.
       Walker officials recognized the mature theme of the 
     performance and advised viewer discretion in all press 
     materials and calendars which advertised the performance.
       Subsequent letters to the Star Tribune editor from patrons 
     at the performance expressed dismay not only about the 
     inaccurate coverage of the event, but concern about how the 
     newspaper had trivialized what was a moving performance on a 
     very disturbing and important contemporary subject. These 
     people are taxpayers too.
       I fully understand that the National Endowment for the Arts 
     must be accountable to your constituents and those of other 
     members of Congress. In supporting the Walker Art Center, the 
     Endowment is simply responding to the overwhelming support 
     afforded that institution by the people and the corporate 
     community of Minneapolis. The Walker is clearly the most 
     prestigious cultural institution in Minnesota. It is staffed 
     by serious professionals who are accountable to the 
     community, and we expect them to make decisions that are 
     respectful of, and appropriate to the community. This I 
     believe they have done.
       I wish it were not so, but the reports following Mr. 
     Athey's performance lend a certain proof to the old adage 
     that a falsehood repeated over and over eventually becomes 
     truth in the ear of the listener. In past years, the 
     Endowment has been harmed over and over again by false 
     reports about the art it may or may not have supported, 
     reports that get repeated again until they have the ring of 
     truth.
       I have devoted the first year of my chairmanship to turning 
     around the reputation of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     by engaging people all over the country in a dialogue about 
     all of the very good projects that we support. I felt it was 
     important in this respect to give you the facts regarding the 
     perfomance at the Walker Art Center. I hope you will contact 
     me if you have any additional questions about it.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Jane Alexander,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                                 Star Tribune,

                                   Minneapolis, MN, June 21, 1994.
     Chairman Jane Alexander,
     Office of the Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts, the 
         Nancy Hanks Center, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Alexander: In an article published 24 March 
     1994 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I reported public 
     complaints about a performance by Los Angeles artist Ron 
     Athey that was staged by Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. 
     That event and subsequent reports about it have generated 
     considerable debate here in the Twin Cities, including 
     letters to the editor of this newspaper expressing both 
     appreciation for and revulsion at Mr. Athey's activities and 
     the Walker's presentation of them.
       In a letter of 15 June 1994 to members of Congress, you 
     take issue with my reportage in particular and the Star 
     Tribune's coverage of that event in general. I object to your 
     characterization of my work and the paper's coverage. In 
     fact, you have misread the article. It does not say that 
     ``blood was dripping from towels,'' as you claim. See 
     enclosed copy of the article.
       Nor was the article ``erroneously reported'' or a ``false 
     report'' as you assert. Walker Art Center officials have 
     privately expressed dismay about the way in which Mr. Athey's 
     performance was described in the article and deplored the 
     response of individuals who objected to the performance. But 
     they do not deny that Mr. Athey cut an abstract design into 
     the flesh of another man, blotted the man's blood on paper 
     towels, attached the towels to a revolving clothesline and 
     suspended the blood-stained towels over the audience.
       Nor do they dispute the fact that Mr. Athey, who is HIV-
     positive, pierced his arm with hypodermic needles and drew 
     blood when he and assistants pierced his scalp with 
     acupuncture needles. ``The head thing actually did bleed, the 
     arm did not,'' said John Killacky, the Walker's curator of 
     performing arts who booked Mr. Athey and staged the event.
       Like you and Walker director Kathy Halbreich, I did not 
     attend this event. In the course of reporting on it, however, 
     I have conducted extensive interviews with five individuals 
     who witnessed Mr. Athey's performance.
       They all agree that these things occurred. They differ only 
     in what they thought of the activities and how they and 
     others responded to them.
       I am disturbed that you now, in the U.S. Congress, charge 
     the Star Tribune with ``erroneous reportage'' and 
     disseminating ``false reports.'' If there are errors in our 
     accounts, please notify Mr. Louis Gelfand, the Star Tribune's 
     ombudsman who will investigate the charges.
       I am also disturbed that you imply that the only letters 
     received by this newspaper were those objecting to alleged 
     ``inaccurate coverage'' and ``trivialization.'' The paper 
     received and published a wide variety of responses to the 
     event, some expressing the views you indicate, and others 
     critical of the event and its presentation by the Walker.
       As you note in another context, ``These people are 
     taxpayers too.''
       On 3 June 1994 you met for about an hour with members of 
     the Star Tribune's editorial board and others here in 
     Minneapolis. I was at that meeting. At no point in the 
     discussion was Mr. Athey's performance even mentioned. If you 
     were concerned about erroneous reportage and false reports, 
     surely that would have been an appropriate time to discuss 
     them.
       In your letter to Congress you note that you have devoted 
     the first year of your chairmanship to ``turning around the 
     reputation of the NEA by engaging people all over the country 
     in a dialogue about all of the very good projects'' the 
     agency supports. Then you say it was in that context that you 
     gave them ``the facts regarding the performance at the Walker 
     Art Center.''
       You did not give them the facts.
       In my capacity as the Star Tribune's art critic and art 
     news reporter for the past decade, I have previously written 
     commentaries in support of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts. I expect to have occasion to do so again in the future 
     because, like you, I recognize that the NEA has made--and 
     doubtless will continue to make--important contributions to 
     the cultural and artistic life of the United States.
       The organization's good work, however, does not exempt it 
     from criticism when its grant money is used in support of 
     events that some find objectionable. Nor does what you call 
     Walker Art Center's ``overwhelming support'' exempt its 
     activities from public discussion.
       In a society founded, as ours is, on free speech and open 
     public debate, the activities of your agency, Walker Art 
     Center and this newspaper are all open to discussion. That 
     discussion is not furthered by pointing fingers at the press 
     and lodging false charges of inaccuracy.
       In the end, Walker Art Center must defend its decision to 
     stage a performance involving human blood-letting and 
     mutilation--or ``ritual scarification'' and ``erotic 
     torture'' as the institution describes it. The NEA must 
     defend its decision to endorse that program.
       Your attempts to blame the press for criticisms of your 
     agency merely trivialize the issues and obscure the facts.
           Cordially,
                                                        Mary Abbe,
                                     Art Critic/Art News Reporter.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, June 17, 1994.
     Chairman Jane Alexander,
     National Endowment for the Arts, Old Post Office Buildin, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: As the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
     the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee with 
     responsibilities for the National Endowment for the Arts, we 
     are writing out of our concern over the NEA funding of the 
     tribal ritual performance at the Walker Art Center in 
     Minneapolis.
       According to the Washington Post, body artist Ron Athey who 
     is HIV-positive, ``. . . tapped his own scalp with needles, 
     which caused slight bleeding and stuck his arm with 
     acupuncture needles''. According to reports, the artist also 
     cut a design into the back of another man and ``blotted the 
     results with a three-ply paper towel and then hoisted the 
     bloodied print on a clothesline above the audience.''
       The Post also reported that several in the audience were 
     horrified and many fled, knocking over chairs to get out from 
     underneath the clotheslines. Obviously these people were 
     concerned about the risks involved in coming into contact 
     with HIV-infected blood. It is unconscionable that the NEA 
     would fund and condone such a performance, especially when 
     the health of the audience members is put at risk.
       While attempting to diminish concerns about public safety, 
     the local health official saw no health threat unless blood 
     contact was made with a mucus membrane, such as the eyes, 
     nose, or mouth. To us, the probability of such contact would 
     not be out of the question under the circumstances.
       Congress has a responsibility to take the federal 
     government to task when it fails to uphold the public's 
     safety. In this case the public should be able to expect to 
     attend a publicly-funded performance without being exposed to 
     HIV-infected blood. We believe you would agree with us on 
     this point.
       As a result, we expect you to ensure that NEA funding in 
     the future does not put the public at health risk. We have 
     placed our confidence in your abilities to tackle these types 
     of concerns.
       The Senate will soon begin its action on the FY 1995 
     Interior appropriations bill, which includes funding for NEA. 
     As you know, a number of prior grant decisions of the Arts 
     Endowment have been the subject of considerable debate and 
     controversy in the Senate. If such debates are to be avoided 
     in the future, and Federal funding for the arts to be 
     continued, it is incumbent upon the NEA and its program 
     beneficiaries to ensure that such projects are not funded, 
     nor performances undertaken which misuse taxpayer funding.
       In that regard, your prompt reply to the following issues 
     is requested:
       (1) How does this use of NEA funds pass the test of 
     artistic excellence and artistic merit, by which applications 
     for NEA funding are to be judged?
       (2) In view of concerns about uses of funds that may be 
     different from what is proposed in a grant application, why 
     should the Committee allow funds for grants that are not 
     subject to strict controls which assure that the purposes 
     stated in the grant application are indeed followed?
       (3) What steps are you taking, and do you intend to take, 
     to prevent such unacceptable actions from occurring when the 
     use of Federal funds, however small, is involved?
       Without the benefit of your response that safeguards will 
     be instituted immediately to ensure that such grossly 
     improper activities are not undertaken in the future, NEA 
     funding for FY 1995 is in serious jeopardy.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
     Don Nickles,
       Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Interior and 
     Related Agencies.
     Robert C. Byrd,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is right in saying that he 
was defeated on this amendment last year, he was defeated on this 
amendment the year before that. Last year he was defeated on this 
amendment by a vote of 105 to 322. To say that he is making progress, I 
say to the gentleman, he has got a long way to go, because there is no 
validity to his amendment at all.
  Mr. Chairman, he cites the case of a grant that was given through the 
Walker Art Center and the letter that was written about that grant by 
two of the Members of the other body. That is always done by those who 
are opposing the NEA. Out of the 4,000 grants that NEA makes in a year, 
they select one grant and say, ``Look at what is happening as a result 
of NEA activities.''
  I suggest to the gentleman that he has not gone into the activities 
of NEA at all, that what he has done is look at a single grant. I think 
that the grantee in his case received $105 for a one-night performance 
from the Walker Art Center.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 4,000 grants the NEA makes each year, grants 
to symphony orchestras, chamber music trios and quartets, jazz 
orchestras, theaters, dance, folk arts design, literature, arts 
education, education for children in schools all over the country, and 
the country is benefiting from them and the arts are blossoming as a 
result of NEA activities. That is the story of the NEA in action. It is 
not the cesspool of pornography or the cesspool of horrible activities 
that the gentleman has portrayed or has been portrayed by certain 
organizations for whom the Senator whose name he mentioned has been the 
spokesman in the Senate. It is no surprise that that Senator has 
opposed NEA. He has rigidly opposed NEA for years, as has the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out another aspect of what NEA does. 
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], in his presentation says the 
NEA grants go to the art elite. Nothing is farther from the truth. It 
is true that some grants may go to the art elite, but let me read to 
the House the testimony before our committee of the county prosecutor 
from Maricopa County, AZ, the city of Phoenix. This is what Mr. Richard 
Romley told our committee.
  He says:

       As Maricopa County Attorney, whose jurisdiction includes 
     Phoenix and 23 other municipalities, my main responsibility 
     is the prosecution of criminals. On an everyday basis, I am 
     confronted with incidents of drive-by shootings, drug and 
     gang violence, rape, robbery, and murder. Ordinarily when I 
     appear before a legislative committee, it is for the purpose 
     of encouraging tougher laws . . . to make society safer by 
     removing the criminal from our midst.

  However, today I am here to discuss a program, and I want the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] to listen to this. I think the 
gentleman should listen to what the prosecuting attorney in Phoenix 
says about NEA. Is the gentleman listening to the testimony of the 
prosecuting attorney of Phoenix, AZ, as he testified before our 
committee:

       I am discussing a program which is outside the traditional 
     role of law enforcement. It is called the Anti-Drug APPLE 
     Corps. The APPLE Corps represents a partnership of artists, 
     prosecutors, private enterprise, law enforcement, and 
     educators which came together because it was our belief that 
     participating in the arts provides an opportunity for our 
     children to build self-confidence and self-esteem . . . to 
     turn them away from substance abuse.

  Mr. Romley goes on to say this:

       . . . the battle lines and special interest groups from 
     both sides descended upon our legislature. After studying the 
     issue, I decided not to support the transfer of these monies 
     from the arts to law enforcement, that the Arizona 
     legislature wanted.
       In view of my position as a prosecutor, my opposition to 
     transferring more money to law enforcement surprised some. 
     However, I believed then as I do today that if we abandon the 
     positive contributions of art to our society in order to 
     fight the drug war, then the drug dealers have won again. 
     They should not be permitted to take from our community that 
     which is good.

  Mr. Romley goes on to say this about the APPLE program:
  ``The initial success of the program,'' and he used RICO money from 
the Department of Justice together with arts money for the young people 
of Arizona, for the people who are threatened with gangs and who are 
threatened with juvenile delinquency.
  He said:
       The initial success of the program encouraged us to embark 
     on a 3-year partnership project that provided funding for 
     after-school art programs. Additional funds were sought and 
     received from the National Endowment for the Arts for that 
     program.
       These funds, combined with the RICO monies, were utilized 
     to develop art programs for at-risk youth in the rural and 
     inner city areas of our State. Nineteen ninety-two was the 
     first year of this project.
       The APPLE Corps program has reached approximately 33,000 
     educators, students and parents across the State of Arizona.

  Mr. Chairman, that is what NEA does, among other things. Sure, it 
provides money for the symphonies, for the orchestras, for the dance 
and for the theaters as it should, but it also has a social conscience. 
It also is interested in education for our youth. In Arizona it is 
having a definite effect.
  Mr. Chairman, the same kind of testimony was presented to our 
committee by a gentleman named William Strickland who does the same 
thing in Pittsburgh, who uses arts money for the purpose of taking 
these kids off the streets and providing them with worthwhile 
activities.

                              {time}  1700

  That is what NEA is.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman the State of Arizona, 
and this is a point I made earlier, the State of Arizona got all of 
$1,600,000 in grants, in contrast to the District of Columbia's 
$8,270,000. The State of Pennsylvania only got $5 million, in contrast 
to the $8 million in the District of Columbia, and that is further 
illustration of the inequity.
  Mr. YATES. You can find that. You can find other places in the 
country, other States in the country, that received even less money 
than that, and there are other States that may possibly receive more. 
But that is based upon the arts activities in those States and a 
formula that is based on the health of the arts and the arts 
appropriations they received from their legislatures.
  So I want to point out to you that NEA does do good work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we all know that arts 
education in America is important. My wife and I financially support 
the arts in our community. My wife sits on the board of a community 
arts organization that is having all types of fiscal problems.
  The question we have before us today is: What is the appropriate role 
of the Federal Government when it comes to funding arts in America? And 
I would argue that it is not within the scope of Washington, not within 
the scope of the Federal Government to be involved in funding arts 
activities around America.
  Second, I would point out at a time when our budget deficit is well 
over $200 billion, we should not be funding arts activities around this 
country and giving the bill to our kids and our grandkids.
  If you look at the history of this program, it happens to coincide 
with a period of time in which we have had budget deficits each and 
every year. So we are out there living high on the hog, funding all of 
these activities around the country, only to pass the bill on to our 
kids and our grandkids.
  It is not right, given the budget problems that we have before us 
today, to continue to involve ourselves in this type of activity.
  Again, I think it is important. But I think that Americans ought to 
rise up in their communities and support these activities financially 
as they do today.
  And so I would support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois and hope my colleagues will begin to realize that as we 
continue to have budget deficits, we have to say no somewhere. This is 
an area that is not within the scope of our responsibility. It is an 
easy place to say no.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  As many of you know, I have not been a big fan of the NEA. However, I 
think in fairness we should recognize the fact that much good is 
accomplished, and in many communities across this country the NEA funds 
become the seed money that results in a lot of private contributions.
  Many people look to the NEA as a leader in determining what should 
happen.
  I think the event at the Walker Art Center, funded by the Walker Art 
Center in Minneapolis was outrageous, absolutely outrageous. However, 
if we abolished every agency of Government that has done something 
outrageous, there would not be many left, and we forget that even 
though something like this was funded indirectly by the NEA, because, 
of course, the money went to Walker Art Center, and they, in turn, made 
the decision as to what they would fund; we forget all the good things 
that have been accomplished by the NEA, encouraging local support.
  I might say the tax policies of this country also encourage local 
support, because the contributions to the cultural activities are 
deductible on a long form on the income tax. So it is part of our 
national policy to encourage cultural things, and NEA is a key element.
  I would like to share with you some testimony we heard in the 
committee. A high school teacher in a small community of 35,000 in 
Alabama said,

       I am constantly looking for ways to enhance my students' 
     classroom experience and to make the words in a textbook come 
     alive and real for my students. I am here to thank you for 
     your support of the NEA which, in turn, has helped to bring 
     professional theater to Alabama, because nothing in my 
     experience as a teacher brings the words of Shakespeare to 
     life like a performance at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. 
     And without the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, there would be 
     no opportunity for thousands of students in the South to 
     discover the wonders of professional theater.

  And he went on to point out how important it was.
  And then one of the students testified, and I quote from him,

       As Mr. Thompson said, my name is Clint Gullatte. I am from 
     a single-parent home and have lived in public housing for 
     most of my life. I am the oldest of four children. I will be 
     attending college where I will major in biology and hope to 
     attend Auburn University School of Veterinary Medicine. My 
     first experience at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival was a 
     production of Peter Pan. I had no idea theater could be so 
     exciting. Next I saw ``A Raisin in the Sun,'' which is 
     still one of my favorites. I could identify with Walter 
     Lee Younger. He was the oldest son in a single-parent 
     family with responsibilities and dreams of a better 
     future. I have faced some of the same oppression, fear, 
     and expectation.

  And the student went on to say how vitally important this experience 
that he had as a result of an NEA grant to the Alabama Shakespeare 
Festival had touched his life.
  We had any number of witnesses similar to this that appeared before 
our committee. I think it is important, as we make a judgment on 
whether or not to continue the NEA, to recognize that while once in a 
while something outrageous happens such as was the case in Minnesota, 
that in contrast far greater numbers of very worthwhile things result 
from the NEA funding and certainly generate in communities across this 
Nation a large amount of support that is based on the NEA's seed money 
and things that are very beneficial to our society.
  So I think we need to weigh that we consider the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], our distinguished minority conference chairman.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to say, Oh brother, here we go again. For 
10 years I have had the privilege of serving in this body, and for each 
of these 10 years I have come to this floor and made this same 
argument.
  Certainly the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, is going to say, Oh brother, I have to listen to that 
again.
  But, nevertheless, here we go. My own view of the matter is the 
National Endowment for the Arts offends the Constitution of the United 
States. My own view is there is no constitutional authority for this 
agency to exist. But leave that be as it may.
  I would further argue the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
arguments by which it is rationalized is an affront to the American 
people. I am personally insulted on behalf of the American people by 
the argument that says without $200 million of the taxpayers' money, 
guided and directed by bureaucrats on behalf of the Federal Government, 
the American people would have for themselves nor afford for their 
children no opportunity to enjoy the arts. What a pitiful thing to say 
about the American people.

  Ladies and gentlemen, the American people have long since enjoyed the 
arts many, many years before there was ever an NEA. It is in our 
spirit. It is in our desires. It is in our longing. It is in our blood. 
We love the arts.
  Testimony to that can be found in the $9 billion we willfully and 
voluntarily spend on the arts today.
  Do not tell me there would have been no Shakespeare Festival in 
Alabama without the NEA. There was 100 years ago without the NEA. Do 
not tell me there would not have been Shakespeare in Montana without 
the NEA. There was 100 years ago without the NEA.

                              {time}  1710

  For us to suggest that the American people have not and do not and 
will not enjoy the arts, practice the arts without NEA is a pitiful 
statement on our lack of understanding of whom we represent.
  Furthermore, if you believe in freedom of the arts--and I do believe 
in freedom of the arts--how can you possibly justify a Government 
agency that decides which art merits support and which does not? Of the 
14,000 grant applications, 4,000 are granted. Is that not censorship 
against 10,000? Tell me how it is not.
  For the Government to decide this art merits support and this art 
does not, I find that unacceptable. Finally, I would say that the 
existence of the NEA is an affront to the taxpayer. At a time when we 
are running deficits of $150 billion to $200 billion, at a time when 
the WIC Program is not funded, can we afford to spend $200 million of 
taxpayers' money for the arts?
  Can we afford to take an elite group of people, generally the most 
privileged people in any community in which a grant is made, an amount 
of money that amounts to 65 cents for each and every American citizen? 
It does not seem like much money, but for the average American school 
child you could take that same 65 cents, buy that child, in their own 
home with their own parents, a box of Crayolas where, with the guidance 
of mother, father, big brother, big sister, grandmother, or 
grandfather, they would in that instance have more participation in the 
arts, in learning, developing, cherishing their own creative ability, 
than you will by giving a grant to somebody who has a masters degree 
from Harvard University already privileged to urinate in a jar and sink 
a crucifix in it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise before you today to express my strong support 
for the Walker Art Center located in Minneapolis, MN. The Walker is one 
of the nation's most esteemed museums of modern and contemporary art. 
Its programs in the visual, performing, and media arts are uniquely 
international, multidisciplinary, and diverse. Since 1879, the Walker 
has supported innovative artists ranging from painter Pablo Picasso to 
choreographer Merce Cunningham to film director Clint Eastwood. Several 
Walker-organized exhibitions are now touring worldwide.
  This year, the Walker and the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden expect to 
serve nearly 700,000 people through exhibition, films, performances, 
and educational programs. Each year the Walker brings more that 3,000 
artists and scholars from across the globe to work and perform in 
Minnesota. Over 40,000 schoolchildren visited the Walker last year, and 
the Walker's new programs for teens serve as a national model.
  Despite this impressive history of promoting both traditional and 
innovative art and developing community interaction, Minnesota's Walker 
Art Center has unfortunately become a part of today's debate about the 
National Endowment for the Arts fiscal year 1995 appropriation. Why? 
Because of a single performance which used $150 of matching grant money 
from the NEA. given what I have heard today--and the obvious high level 
of misinformation circulating feel it necessary to make you aware of 
what really happened.
  On March 5, an audience of less than 100 people viewed a one-time 
performance by the Ron Athey theater troupe. The performance, which has 
also been seen in other communities including Los Angeles and Chicago, 
dealt with the difficult issues surrounding AIDS. The performance drew 
on centuries-old traditions from around the world and included a 
ceremony related to the African tradition of scarification which 
involved the drawing of a small amount of blood. Specifically, Mr. 
Athey used a surgical instrument to draw several small patterns on the 
back of a fellow performer. Just for the record, Mr. Athey has attested 
that his assistant is HIV-negative. The blood was then blotted on 3-ply 
paper towels and fastened to a clothesline. Some towels were slowly 
raised to the ceiling above the audience's heads.
  Because of the nature of this performance, the Walker took all 
appropriate precautions as developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease 
Control and provided to the Walker by the Minnesota AIDS Project. The 
Minnesota Department of Health has publicly concurred that appropriate 
precautions were taken. In addition, all promotional and press material 
included a notice advising viewer discretion.
  Some media reports suggest that many members of the audience fled. 
Others report of blood soaked towels. This is simply not accurate. The 
towels were not dripping and while approximately 10 members of the 
audience left quietly during the performance, many others have written 
to say they found the performance affirming, moving, and enlightening. 
In fact, to the best of my knowledge, this entire situation was 
generated by a single complaint and fed by irresponsible journalism.
  I wish it were no so, but the reports following Mr. Athey's 
performance lend credence to the old adage that a falsehood repeated 
over and over eventually becomes truth in the ear of the listener. So I 
will say once again, the Walker Art Center is one of the most 
prestigious institutions in the country and has earned an international 
reputation. The NEA has played a crucial role in helping the Walker Art 
Center provide these services to Minnesota. It is extremely disturbing 
that the NEA, which has made such enormous contributions to the 
educational and cultural vitality of Minnesota, and all other States, 
would be placed in jeopardy by a single event.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the National Endowment for 
the Arts and am proud to have the Walker Art Center in my congressional 
district.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close on this 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has the right 
to close debate.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Crane's amendment. I have in front of me 
here for the House's viewing a picture by Olaf Wieghorst, who was 
considered the dean of Western artists and who lived in San Diego for 
the last 45 of his 50 years. He was one of the highest-priced artists 
in the world when he finally passed away a couple of years ago, a man 
who despised subsidies. He was a cowboy, he never had a lesson in his 
life, never had a Government program, and he depicted the West in 
rugged individualism and responsibility and accountability.
  I want to let the gentleman know that there are thousands of artists 
who have come up the hard way, who do not need Federal dollars, do not 
need subsidies.
  We have a billion-dollar, or multi-billion-dollar, domestic private 
art market which supports the winners; there is no reason for 
Government to support the losers.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to any amendment which seeks 
to cut or eliminate funding for arts and museums in America, and I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me.
  As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I am struck not 
only by the diversity of the activities the NEA offers, but also, by 
how far-reaching the impact of the NEA is.
  For those Members who are contemplating voting to cut funding for the 
NEA to save money, I ask you to think again, after you have the facts. 
The NEA is one of the most powerful seed grant programs working today. 
In fact, it provides a significant economic stimulus to many small 
communities.
  In fiscal year 1992, the $153 million in program funds invested by 
the NEA leveraged $1.68 billion in contributions and funding from 
businesses, groups, individuals, and other sources. This means that for 
each dollar invested by the NEA, $11 in matching funds are produced. In 
turn, this creates a 20-fold return in jobs, services, and contracts.
  Since the Endowment's founding in 1965, the number of orchestras has 
increased from 110 to 230; nonprofit theater companies have gone from 
37 to 450; opera companies have grown in number from 27 to 120, and 
dance companies from 35 to 450. In California alone, the number of 
performing arts companies, museums, and arts organizations has grown 
from 650 to over 1,400.
  The counties of Marin and Sonoma, in California, which I am 
privileged to represent, have received over $100,000 this year in 
support of the arts, for incredibly diverse programs.
  For instance, the NEA awarded individual creative writing grants to 
the Headlands Center for the Arts located in Sausalito, CA, which has a 
terrific open studio program for visual artists. The wonderful Marin 
Symphony, and Public Art Works Co., also, received seed grants to bring 
their services to more people. The Antenna Theater in Sausalito, 
recently received $20,000 to create a production, which will combine 
elements from museum exhibits, radio theater, and audience 
participation.
  Sonoma County benefits from Endowment-funded opera performances in 
Santa Rosa, and public radio and television programs based in Rohnert 
Park.
  The Kids Street Theater in Santa Rosa, however, a non-profit theater 
group, which is made up of former school drop-outs, homeless kids, and 
other at-risk youth does not receive NEA funding. The director, Linda 
Conklin, recently brought her plea for financial assistance to me at a 
hearing on the NEA that was held in my district. She desperately wants 
to help more children, but she is in constant danger of losing her 
building and resources because she relies solely on private donations. 
A small grant from the NEA may be all she needs to stabilize her 
terrific program and pull in other funds.
  Mr. Chairman, all these extraordinary activities by the NEA costs the 
individual taxpayer 68 cents a year. The total Federal commitment to 
the arts is less than two ten-thousandths of one percent of our budget.
  Being a member of the Budget Committee, I firmly believe cutting 
unnecessary and unworkable programs is vitally important. I say to my 
colleagues, if you are serious about having some real impact in debt 
reduction, look elsewhere in the budget. The NEA is an excellent 
program that fits the criteria for deserving Federal support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this weakening amendment.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], 
and I would just remind everyone of one very important point, and that 
is, if all of this money that has been diverted from law enforcement in 
Arizona is going into art works, why is it, with the third highest 
funding in the Nation here in DC, we have the highest per capita 
homicide rate in the world?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is 
recognized from 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, more than any other debate in this great 
Chamber the one over NEA mystifies me. Well over 99 percent of NEA-
funded art is certainly fine art. We are going to revisit this debate 
every single year because of that less than 1 percent that is so 
utterly offensive and blasphemous. I may come up with a creative 
amendment to give it to high school art programs which are closing 
every week all around the country.
  I know that my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates], is a lover and a participant in the arts and wants to 
defend this program with all the fiber of his being. However, he too is 
embarrassed by this less than 1 percent, but the 1 percent keeps 
getting funded again and again and again.
  Now here are quotes from two members of an NEA peer review board.
  Helen Frankenthaler, a member of one of the peer review panels, a 
renowned and respected American painter and a heroine of the feminist 
movement, rejected some of the applications on the grounds that we 
should not fund this junk. She called it junk. There is plenty of junk. 
And I want to come back to some of the junk that got through.
  Here is Phyllis Berney, another distinguished peer review panel 
member. She said that many of the works were politically inspired as 
opposed to primarily artistically inspired.
  Why are these same people and this same garbage being now funded 
under Jane Alexander, a distinguished actress and artist who more or 
less promised that she was trying to get a handle on this?
  Look what comes back again. Jerk, Tim Miller, who has heretofore used 
NEA funds to disrobe and masturbate on stage, and then do it in the 
audience, under a performance, quote, art presentation entitled ``My 
Queer Body.'' How did this guy get back on the public dole again?
  Here is Holly Hughes back again receive more funds. We do not even 
know what she is going to do, but she is the Hughes of sewer 
performances like ``The Well of Horniness.''

  Here is Karen Finley back again, whose past grants were used to 
deliver vicious antireligious and radical feminist harangues on stage 
while totally naked and covered in what we were told is chocolate 
syrup. She gets more money even though no one knows what her project is 
even going to be.
  Here are Hughes, and Finley, and Miller back again, who sued and won 
because Jane Alexander's predecessor went into the courtroom and took a 
dive, as they say in prizefighting parlance. Here is the Kitchen 
Theater again. They paid money to Annie Sprinkle to invite the audience 
to give her, and I am going to change the writing in front of me, to 
conduct a gynecological examination upon her naked body with a 
flashlight.
  Here is Frameline back again with more money for more pornographic, 
hard-core, close-in pornography at the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in 
San Francisco.
  Here is Marlon Riggs back again, and the list goes on, and on, and 
on, and I will finish it under the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] which probably will win. We need 
to rattle their bell and get their attention to stop giving money to 
these nonartistic jerks.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House again to overwhelmingly 
reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane], and there has been much made of the fact that some of the 
grants that have been made to various arts institutions have 
occassionally wound up with controversial art. This is what art is all 
about. It has always been controversial, and it will always be so.
  The gentleman from Ohio and others in the leadership have stated to 
the National Endowment for the Arts that artistic excellence should be 
the guiding principle. I believe that that is correct.
  I will say this:
  Jane Alexander is an outstanding chairman of the Endowment. She is an 
artist. She is an actress. She is someone who is traveling all over the 
country trying to convince the American people that the investment for 
the National Endowment for the Arts is a good one.
  I would say this:
  The test is in the private sector, and ever since the Endowment was 
created, Mr. Chairman, the private sector has responded. For every 
dollar we invest as seed money through the National Endowment for the 
Arts we are receiving $11 in private sector investment, much of which 
is in matching grant money.
  I would also point out that this is a major job-creation activity. 
The National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies report, Arts in the 
Economy, 1994, demonstrates that nonprofit art organizations have a 
significant impact on the Nation's economy. For example, 1.3 million 
full-time jobs are supported, 908,000 in the arts industry and 391,000 
in supporting jobs. Twenty-five point two billion dollars is earned 
through the salaries, wages and entrepreneurial income. Local 
governments received $790 million in fees and taxes. State government 
receives $1.2 billion in fees and taxes. And the Federal Government 
receives $3.4 billion in income tax revenue.
  I think this is a very good investment of the American taxpayers' 
money. Every poll shows that they overwhelmingly support the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Jane Alexander is trying to use the arts in our inner cities to reach 
out to young people, to give them an alternative to crime, and 
violence, and drugs, and degradation. This is a positive program for 
the American people, and I think we should support it and again reject 
the Crane amendment because it simply is too severe. It restricts this 
agency too much.
  I also hope that we will defeat the other amendment as well, Mr. 
Chairman.
  This budget, by the way, in 1979 was $149 million. It has been eroded 
by 46 percent. We have held the line on this.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress has been responsible. This 
committee has been responsible. One hundred seventy-one million dollars 
is not enough, frankly. We need more money for the arts.
  So I say to my colleagues, ``Let's reject the Crane amendment as we 
did last year.''
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  All over America, local artists and local arts groups rely on the 
National Endowment for the Arts for essential support. These groups are 
doing tremendous work, but they are struggling for survival.
  No one has ever questioned the work of hundreds of groups around the 
Nation. They have enriched our community and the quality of life.
  Let me tell you some of the things the NEA does in my district. 
Support for the Westchester Council for the Arts; support for the 
Hudson River Museum in Yonkers, support for the Emelin Theater for the 
Performing Arts in Mamaroneck; and fellowship support for artists in 
Bronxville and City Island.
  But this amendment could put many of them out of business. It will 
shut down deserving arts organizations all over this Nation, and it 
will do real damage to the cultural vitality of our Nation.
  But that is not all. Abolishing the NEA would do damage to our local 
schools who rely on the Endowment to expand arts education in difficult 
financial times. It would take funds out of our schools and away from 
our children, at a time when the NEA is developing innovative programs 
to reach and educate at-risk Youth. The A.P.P.L.E. Corps programs, for 
example, is an innovative partnership of artists and law enforcement 
officials who understand that participation in the arts provides young 
people an opportunity to build self-confidence and self-esteem, and 
strengthens their resolve against drugs. This amendment would cripple 
programs like A.P.P.L.E.
  And finally, this amendment would also undermine the economy of many 
areas of this country.
  Last year the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released a 
study on the economic impact of arts activities on the New York 
economy. The findings were dramatic, and cannot be ignored: While the 
economy of the New York metropolitan region has suffered, one sector of 
the regional Economy has grown--the arts. Indeed, the Arts directly 
employ over 40,000 people, and pump at least $9.8 billion a year into 
the economy of the New York Area.
  An amendment to cut the NEA is an amendment to undermine an important 
growth area in our economy. The Arts are a lifeline not just for the 
creativity of many New Yorkers, but also a lifeline for the economy of 
our region.
  Mr. Chairman, an amendment that will harm our Nation's schools, 
damage's our cultural heritage, and damage local economies, at the same 
time, does not deserve the support of this House. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 313, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--113

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Orton
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--313

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Houghton
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Oberstar
     Reynolds
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Solomon
     Underwood (GU)
     Velazquez
     Washington

                              {time}  1749

  Mr. SAXTON, Mr. DOOLEY, and Ms. DANNER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as recorded.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. de 
la Garza) having assumed the chair, Mr. Glickman, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________