[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1995

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4602) making appropriations for the 
Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1037


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 4602, with Mr. Glickman in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
22, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane] had been disposed of, and title II was open for amendment at any 
point.
  Are there further amendments to title II?


               amendment offered by mr. bachus of alabama

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bachus of Alabama: Page 76, line 
     25, strike ``$141,950,000'' and insert ``$49,293,100''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, without losing my time and 
place, I would like the opportunity to discuss my amendment first, but 
I will enter into a discussion with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] if I do not lose my time.
  Mr. YATES. All I propose to do is fix a time limit, which I had 
understood the gentleman agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will protect the gentleman on his time.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I believe the arrangement with 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is for 15 minutes on each side.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, that is 
correct. Is that satisfactory to the gentleman from Alabama?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. It is very satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. With the gentleman controlling time on his side, and I on 
mine.
  Mr. Chairman, I make that as a unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request of 
the gentleman from Illinois that the debate on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes $91 million 
from the appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts.

                              {time}  1040

  That is the amount awarded in the program grants and administrative 
cost. It reserves $8 million in administrative cost. It preserves those 
funds awarded to the States to be disbursed at their discretion. It 
also reserves all matching funds. Currently our States are given only 
23\1/2\ percent of the total amount that we appropriate for the NEA. I 
do support the arts, but I am finding it increasingly obvious that Jane 
Alexander's staff at the NEA is having real problems with these 
individual grants. I think the discussion yesterday about what happened 
in Minneapolis is evidence of that. I think every time the NEA 
appropriation comes up, there is a long list of very offensive projects 
that the NEA has funded. If we look at those projects, almost in their 
entirety they are projects of individual grants or program grants. On 
the other hand when we have awarded money to the States or given 
matching grants, matching funds, we seem to have no problem with that.
  I think that is evidence, Mr. Chairman, that the States are in a much 
better position to distribute this money as opposed to some committee 
or panel over at the NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I also say that because to me it is outrageous that the 
administrative expenses at the NEA are $25 million. This House 
appropriates $171 million in program grants, both State programs and 
program grants. Yet it costs $25 million here in Washington to 
distribute that money. As opposed to that, I think that the States can 
make a much better decision on where that money is needed.
  Yesterday we had a long discussion on the floor of this House about 
the merits and the benefits of the National Endowment for the Arts 
programs. Time and time again speakers came to the well of this House 
and they talked about a project in my home State. It was a Shakespeare 
Festival. In fact, the gentleman from Ohio in my party discussed a 
letter from a young gentleman who said that without this appropriation 
to the Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, AL, he would never have an 
appreciation of Shakespeare, he would have never had an opportunity to 
hear a Shakespeare program. Mr. Chairman, in all respect for that 
statement, I think it is very condescending to the people of Alabama 
and it claims tremendous credit for a very small contribution.
  I will say to the Members in all candor that I have a letter from the 
Shakespeare Festival saying to me, support this over $200 million 
appropriation to the National Endowment for the Arts, because we get 
some of this money. I requested from the National Endowment for the 
Arts a list of the appropriation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for a moment?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Without losing my time and place. Let me say 
this. I would like to give an organized discussion. At the end of that, 
I would be glad to engage the gentleman in a discussion. Let me say 
this, then I will invite the gentleman's comment about this.
  Mr. DICKS. Just on a fact.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Let me tell the gentleman what a fact is. A 
fact is that all this talk about the Shakespeare Festival, last year 
they received $14,100 in a grant. We are talking about a multimillion-
dollar budget for the Shakespeare Festival. Yet people stood in this 
very House and said without this appropriation, without these program 
grants, that this Shakespeare Festival would close and lock its doors. 
We are talking about a multimillion-dollar project. We are talking 
about many corporations in Alabama that support this project with 
greater grants. We are talking about a minuscule amount. Not that it is 
not appreciated, but what I am saying to the gentleman is let us give 
that money to the State, let them appropriate money, which they do out 
of their share. We get $5,000 for the opera in Mobile. We get $10,000 
for the children's theater. Those are good projects. But there is no 
need for us to appropriate for what I am talking about, the program 
grants.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, without yielding my time and place, I yield 
to the gentleman from Washington. I just yield for one fact.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman that if the 
gentleman yields, he yields his time.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to point out to the gentleman, that the 
budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is not over $200 
million. It is $171 million. That is the only point I wanted to make. I 
would just say to the gentleman, that oftentimes an NEA grant serves as 
the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. When people see that the panel 
review and the NEA has approved a grant, then the private sector will 
come in and contribute money to it because they know that this is a 
quality production. So this does have a point.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the gentleman's Shakespeare 
Festival get more money for support of its festival. But it is not 
going to happen if we cut $91 million out of this budget. What we are 
going to do is totally destroy a good quality program. In 1979, the 
budget for the National Endowment for the Arts was $146 million. This 
is not a budget that is growing.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bachus amendment is the Crane amendment in another 
form and for half that amount. If the Bachus amendment is accepted by 
the House, it proposes to reduce the NEA budget by 53 percent. That is 
what the effect of the $92.6 million would be. Obviously that would be 
an almost impossible reduction for the NEA to cope with.
  With respect to the gentleman's assertion that more money should go 
to the States, that that is where the action is on the local level, the 
authorizing committee which authorized the extension of the National 
Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities recognized a part of the 
justice of the gentleman's position by allocating a change in the 
amount going to the States, from 25 percent to 35 percent. So that the 
States now get a third of all the moneys, slightly more than a third of 
the moneys that go to the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's arguments about the 
Shakespeare Festival, let me read from the testimony before our 
committee of a fellow Alabamian, the respected former Postmaster of the 
United States, Red Blount, of Alabama, in which he said, on page 1205 
of our hearings for fiscal year 1993:

       Funding from the National Endowment for the Arts program 
     serves as a symbol of quality and an important endorsement of 
     the Alabama Shakespeare Festival's other funding sources. NEA 
     support also plays a crucial role in enabling the Alabama 
     Shakespeare Festival to move in new directions to better 
     serve the people in our arts in our region. An NEA investment 
     of $36,000, only one-half of 1 percent of our budget, in the 
     Alabama Shakespeare Festival this year is helping to create 
     new southern artistry, provide professional theater for 
     hundreds of thousands, generate $10 million in tourism, and 
     educate 50,000 students a year. Where else do so few Federal 
     dollars have such a large multiplier effect and enormous 
     ultimate value? Any businessman would be happy with a 
     fraction of such returns on their investment.
       I, therefore, trust that you will continue to invest 
     precious Federal resources where such a high and valuable 
     return is achieved.

                              {time}  1050

  The Bachus amendment would eliminate all support for the National 
Endowment for the Arts to the arts organizations throughout the Nation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the executive director of the National 
Assembly of state Arts Agencies, which represents all State arts 
agencies in the country, opposes the Bachus amendment. The executive 
director, Jonathan Katz, wrote, ``The States' arts agencies want a 
strong and effective partner at the Federal level. The Bachus amendment 
would destroy that relationship.''
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to the comments of the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I think what the gentleman from 
Illinois said is a very succinct argument, and that is that the 
Shakespeare Festival has written and said that this is one-half of 1 
percent of our budget, but it means so much to us. It attracts 
corporate donors.
  I can tell you three of those major corporate donors have also stated 
that it makes absolutely no difference to them whether or not the NEA 
puts some stamp of endorsement on it or not.
  Also, I would say this: The former Postmaster, who I have great 
respect for, has also written me and urged me on several occasions to 
balance the budget. He very much believes that this deficit spending is 
putting obligations on our children and our grandchildren, and I would 
hope that the gentleman from Illinois would agree with me that when we 
have deficit financing and deficits that this is an extravagance we 
cannot afford.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus]. Let me pick up where I left 
off yesterday. First the private sector supports the arts to the tune 
of $9 billion, so this $171 million is a drop in the bucket by 
comparison. Second, the vast majority of grant requests are turned 
down, including the Shakespeare Theatre in my district. The point is, 
this money is given out to self-proclaimed artists who should be able 
to complete in the marketplace.
  All the money has dried up for my high school art programs, so I have 
not, in the last year, been able to run an art contest in my district 
to have a picture hung proudly in the tunnel leading to the Cannon 
Building.
  But look where we do find allocations of our tax dollars. Porno jerk, 
jerk, porno jerk Tim Miller got almost $15,000. Holly Hughes, porno 
female jerk, she got $9,375. Kitchen Theater, porno scum, $20,000; 
Frameline, porno slime, got almost $20,000; Marlin Riggs, $50,000, used 
the taxpayers' money from both the NEA and public broadcasting, our tax 
dollars, to produce the pornographic, profanity-filled, 
prohomosexual documentary titled, ``Tongues Untied,'' 
absolute gutter garbage.
  The Walker Art Center: Now, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], 
got up and defended the Walker Art Center and said, ``Leave it alone.''
  Let me put it in context. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] 
grew up in Minneapolis. He explained to me that the Walker is the 
Dorothy Chandler Pavilion of Minnesota. It is the John F. Kennedy 
Center in Minneapolis. At that beautiful Walker Art Center is where 
Karen jerk scum Finley first came to national attention; Ron Athey 
recently sliced designs into the flesh of another man's back and soaked 
the blood up with paper towels. One of my distinguished colleagues 
said, ``Well, there was not much blood, and it was only blotted up, and 
it went over the audience's head, but they did not drip on the 
audience,'' and the people who fled we are told, knew they were going 
to see this mutilation performance. I have seen attendees, moving 
images, sight, sound, motion, color, saying they did not know they were 
going to be subjected to this insanity.
  The Walker Art Center got $210,800 of our tax dollars. Franklin 
Furnace Archive in New York, where Karen Finley, Holly Hughes, Tim 
Miller, and all the others have been using our tax money, they got 
$33,000.
  This thing goes on and on and on.
  Highway, Inc., in Santa Monica, they got $44,980. This is where Tim 
Miller, jerk develops his homosexual ``shock'' material and serves on 
their board of directors.
  Then there is the Centro Cultural de la Raza, which gave away 
taxpayers' $10 crisp new bills and gave them to illegal immigrants.
  And then Cavah Zahedi got $20,000 for a narrative film on the 
vagaries of sexual obsession. It goes on and on and on and on.
  NEA's Jane Alexander has said we must gently introduce our Nation to 
homosexuality. I went to her introductory luncheon. She impressed me. I 
thought she was going to stop this nonsense, and here is what she says 
in response to an angry Senator, Democrat Robert Byrd, and an angry 
Senator, Republican Don Nickles, with respect to the Athey performance: 
``His work is a study exploring modern-day martyrdom.'' This is Jane 
Alexander's moment to retract her confirmation conversion.


                             point of order

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is the gentleman is not 
allowed to refer to the Senators by name.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed in order, but he should be 
aware to avoid characterization of members of the other body.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DORNAN. It was a respectful reference, and I went on for a year 
referring to it as the other body. Somebody informed me, it must be 2 
years ago, that now we were allowed to call it the U.S. Senate.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, But referring to individual Members of 
the other body----
  Mr. DORNAN. I just wanted to indicate respectfully it was a 
bipartisan anger with the very distinguished head of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Byrd.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed in order.
  The gentleman has an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DORNAN. With respect to the Athey performance itself, still 
quoting Jane Alexander, this excellent actress, ``His work is a study 
exploring modern-day martyrdom as it relates to AIDS.'' So Athey cuts 
up the back of this person. Athey, of course, is HIV positive, and we 
will read in a little blip one day, ``Great artiste, Ron Athey, dies of 
AIDS.''
  The whole thing, Mr. Chairman, is nuts.
  I am voting for this amendment. We will cut 5 percent with the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. Most 
people here are terrified of the homosexual lobby, but some of us are 
not.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman, on my time, respond to 
a question? You mentioned that there are billions in private 
contributions, and I think that is great.
  Mr. DORNAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Look at the last price of a Van Gogh painting.
  Mr. REGULA. Yes. Those are all tax deductible, which, in effect, 
means the Government is subsidizing them in the form of tax deductions, 
and with $2 billion, it would be about a $600 million subsidy in the 
form of a tax deduction. Do you favor continuing tax deductions for 
contributions to our arts, cultural things similar to what NEA funds?
  Mr. DORNAN. If the gentleman will yield further, absolutely, and that 
is how we should stimulate the Medicis of modern America, the patrons 
of the arts. I love the arts, and I voted for this for 10 years. That 
is the way to go.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman.
  Just a couple of comments, because it was mentioned about the 
Shakespeare Arts Festival, which I discussed yesterday.
  What I said yesterday was to quote the people from Alabama. It was 
not my statement at all. It was what people from there said during our 
hearing.
  And I would quote again from that hearing, and I might say we had 
several witnesses from the Shakespeare Festival, and they point out, 
and I quote Mr. Thompson, the artistic director of the Shakespeare 
Festival, who said, ``This grant from the National Endowment is vitally 
important to our theater, because we are the only major performing arts 
institution in Alabama. In short, the NEA helps us leverage $2.8 
million in additional gifts and grants.'' And I think that is great. 
``Also here today in support of the NEA are two Members of the 
community we serve, Effie Cannon, a secondary-school teacher, and Clint 
Gullatte,'' who was a student.

                             {time}   1100

  Basically, what they said is that the grant was used to, in some 
instances, help students get there by giving a reduced price on the 
ticket. So there is no allegation that this was the key funding 
mechanism.
  I think it is wonderful that the people down there support this 
theater in such a strong way.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. Chairman, let us focus on what the NEA really does: 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 Theatre 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 APPLE Corps Program, 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 APPLE.
  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 our cultural heritage, and damage local economies, at the same 
time, does not deserve the support of this House. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I would just like to say that on this question of the 
controversial grant, anyone who knows anything about the granting 
process understands there is going to be some controversy. What is 
remarkable to me is that over the years since 1965, when the Endowment 
was created, over 100,000 grants have been awarded, and frankly only 
about 25 to 30 have been controversial.
  Let me also point out this fact about the situation in Minnesota. The 
money is granted to the museum. They have 110 separate performances of 
which one is controversial. However, they did not tell the Endowment 
for the Arts what those 110 performances were going to be. That is a 
decision they make during that year.
  The grant actually occurred in March of that year, and it was a year 
later that this performance actually occurred. So I do not think you 
should blame the Endowment if you have any questions about it. I think 
this institution has a reputation for excellence, unquestioned 
excellence, and so the Endowment was perfectly legitimate in making a 
grant to them.
  Let me just read from the statement of Jane Alexander, chairman of 
the National Endowment for the Arts, about some of the specific things 
where young people have been helped by the Endowment.
  She says:

       I've seen young Native American children in Tucson learning 
     the history of their own culture from native storytellers in 
     a public school. In Chicago, I saw a young African-American 
     child, no older than eight playing the violin at the People's 
     School, one of our grantees. He was not a virtuoso yet, but 
     he was determined. In the inner city of Detroit, one of our 
     artists-in-residence organized the Mosaic Youth Theatre and 
     performed a Midsummer's Night Dream for us. In Birmingham's 
     Space One Eleven young people were making Wedgewood-type 
     bricks. In Colorado, I saw how the arts are helping at-risk 
     children on the road to self-discovery through dance. In 
     communities across the country, the arts are part of the 
     lifelong learning process so vital to our health as a 
     society.

  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have over the 
years restrained the funding for the Endowment. It used to be $149 
million in 1979. This is not a program that is growing out of control. 
This is a program that has been under great restraint.
  The purchasing power, from 1979 to the present, actually has been 
reduced by 46 percent. The State art organizations oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. They understand the importance of the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  In our State of Washington, my home area, art institution after art 
institution has been strengthened over the years because of challenge 
grants and matching grants that have been funded by the Endowment for 
the Arts.
  In Washington State, arts have grown dramatically because of this.
  So, I say to the gentleman this is a positive program. I would urge 
the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to say to the House that if the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] had read my amendment, he would be aware that it 
does not address matching grants. But I appreciate the wonderful words 
that he said about them.
  With my amendment in place, that wonderful program would go forward 
without any reduction.
  I would also like to say to the gentleman that--which he brings up 
again--the performance in Minnesota, using that as a positive, saying 
that the NEA has absolutely no culpability in this, let me state to you 
what the art critic for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune said about the 
performance and about NEA:

       The Walker Art Center must defend its decision to stage a 
     performance involving human blood-letting and multilation--or 
     ritual, ``ritual scarification'' and ``erotic torture,'' as 
     the institution describes it. The NEA must defend its 
     decision to endorse that program.

  That is the Minneapolis, Minnesota, Star-Tribune. ``The NEA must 
defend its position to endorse that program.''
  I also point out to the gentleman from Washington and to the body as 
a whole that on November 10, 1993, I introduced legislation in this 
body with 25 cosponsors, which would address, I think, the concerns 
that you have expressed and I have expressed, which simply reads as 
follows--and this would be a very positive step, and I would like your 
support in the future. It says,

       None of the funds received by the Endowment or by any State 
     agency to provide financial assistance for a program 
     production workshop can depict or describe in a patently 
     offensive way sexual or excretory activities or organs or 
     religion or religious symbol.

  Let us get these offensive words out. The Supreme Court actually has 
interpreted ``displaying in a patently offensive way,'' and I think it 
is time for this body to vote on this legislation and to end it, even 
if it is 100 projects.
  These are taxpayer funded.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. Chairman, let me point out very quickly that the Founders of our 
country considered whether to fund the arts or ask the taxpayers to do 
that, and they almost unanimously rejected that. These were the Framers 
of the Constitution. They realized--and it was true--that private 
funding of the arts was sufficient, and in fact the arts flourished, as 
did public education, all through the past century. And we are talking 
about less than 1 percent.
  The claims of what the NEA does are to me totally outlandish. One 
would think that the whole economy of this country depended on it. I 
will say this: In truth, New York City does receive about $40 million 
in funding, so perhaps with the exception of New York City, I do not 
think that statement is true.
  Finally, I would say this in conclusion: City Stages, Birmingham, AL, 
last weekend, 264,000 people attended an art festival there. There was 
not NEA funding, in fact. There was a private funding. It was the 
largest of its kind in the State.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that my amendment be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has 
expired, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, just let me say that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane] is interested in killing the appropriation for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bauchus] is interested in killing the appropriation for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. He voted with Mr. Crane yesterday in support of 
Mr. Crane's amendment. This is the Crane amendment in lesser form.
  Under this amendment the gentleman from Alabama proposes to take 53 
percent of the appropriations away from the National Endowment for the 
Arts and give it to the States, in effect killing it again.
  I do not think the House is going to accept the Bachus amendment, nor 
should it accept that amendment.
  With respect to the comments of the gentleman from California--and I 
am sorry the gentleman is not on the floor at the present time--and the 
comments made by the gentleman from Alabama about the Minneapolis 
Tribune's critic, let me say that if she is the one who wrote the 
article that first appeared that was the basis of the protest by two 
Members of another body to which he referred and the gentleman from 
California referred, there is an editorial in today's Sun-Times to 
indicate the person who wrote that article did not even see the 
performance, that her article was written without benefit of actually 
seeing what the performance was like. Nevertheless, whoever wrote that 
said that the audience was horrified and many fled, knocking down 
chairs to get from underneath the clothes lines. That was obviously 
untrue. We discussed that yesterday.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Bachus amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 297, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--132

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

                               NOES--297

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     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
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Chapman
     Engel
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Schumer
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1135

  Mr. BARTON of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 77, after line 19, 
     insert the following:


                         reduction for funding

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title for ``National Endowment for the Arts'' is hereby 
     reduced by 5 percent.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, 
with 15 minutes on each side, the time for the amendment to be 
controlled by the gentleman from Florida and the time on my side to be 
controlled by me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would that 
mean that I would have the closing then?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, no, I have the 
closing, regardless of the time limitation. I would have the closing.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think 15 minutes apiece is satisfactory.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat my proposal to limit time 
on this amendment and to all amendments thereto to 15 minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleague, I do 
not want my time to be taken away if for some reason the gentleman has 
an amendment to my amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will have his full 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will have my full 15 minutes?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. STEARNS. So if, in fact, the gentleman comes in with an amendment 
to my amendment, he gets 15 minutes, and I get 15 minutes.
  Mr. YATES. That will come from my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, that would 
certainly be acceptable to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request is the time limit of 30 
minutes on this amendment and all amendments thereto, but the gentleman 
from Florida has reserved 15 minutes out of this time regardless of 
whether there is an amendment to the amendment.

                              {time}  1140


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I can offer my amendment to the gentleman's 
amendment after he makes his opening statement, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can offer it any time he is recognized 
after that, but under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is protected for 15 minutes total out of the 
30 minutes time period.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has the other 15 minutes 
total out of the 30 minutes time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, I received a full 15 
minutes. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] starts to use his 
time and his side amends my amendment, they have to take their time out 
of their time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the NEA by 
a simple 5 percent. Such a savings would result in the amount of $8.6 
million, taking the fiscal year 1995 funding level from $171.1 million 
to what I believe is still a generous amount of $162.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past several years I have offered amendments to 
the Interior appropriations bill that would reduce the level of the 
NEA. My colleagues should realize when I offered 5 percent and we were 
successful last year, in the conference committee they cut it in half, 
so it resulted in 2.5-percent reduction. I judge from the conversation 
we just had, Mr. Chairman, that it appears that my colleagues on that 
side of the aisle are going to amend my amendment to reduce the 5 
percent. I find that a little bit disconcerting, because if they cut my 
5 percent down, and I do not know what the gentleman is going to offer, 
then the conference committee cuts it further, and there will be no 
cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear about this, that that side of the 
aisle wants to move the 5 percent down to almost zero. Mr. Chairman, I 
do not want to concentrate the debate so much today on the controversy 
that was talked about earlier. I think we hashed that out. I do want to 
mention a little bit about it, because for the first time now we have 
the senior Senator Byrd of West Virginia involved, a Democrat, a 
distinguished Democrat on the Senate side. He focused his attention, as 
well as did Senator Nickles and Senator Helms, in a letter to the NEA 
chairwoman, Jane Alexander. The Senators wanted assurance from Jane 
Alexander that ``projects are not funded, nor performances undertaken, 
which misuse taxpayer funding.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have been through this for at least the 6 years that 
I have been in the House. Controversy seems to stay with the NEA. We 
now have a senior Senator from the Democratic Party also coming 
onboard. This all involves the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, which 
sponsored art exhibits at area night clubs.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all talked about what happened with Ron Athey, 
an HIV-positive artist, in the scarification on another individual's 
back, and how he used the blood soaked rags on a clothesline. The 
audience panicked. Of course the audience would panic. They just 
witnessed a horrendous scene, one that not only disgusted them, but in 
their minds, put them in danger.
  The question we would have to ask the taxpayer, the man who is a 
plumber, a farmer, a schoolteacher, is: Do they consider that art? I 
would think that they would say simply no, it is not art.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we see here is almost tortured art, and 
this art is not something we want to endorse. Art should provide us 
with a whiff of greatness, provide optimism, and instill a feeling of 
individuality. It should cultivate good taste and elevate the human 
spirit. It should not turn toward pessimism and negation, and be 
sponsored by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple question is, does a bloody towel represent 
the ideals of the American people? Does it ennoble us and give us a 
greater capacity for appreciation and understanding of the arts? Does 
it educate us for improvement of our souls and minds? Are we any better 
off having witnessed such a scene?
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA should open up the way for the decent, hard-
working American to enjoy art. There should be a renewed spirit and a 
strong commitment to traditional values, including the feeling, ``I am 
glad that the Government is supporting this project. I am very proud of 
it.''
  This is a simple declaration that we are seeking, as I mentioned 
earlier, from the plumber, the electrician, the schoolteacher, the 
businessperson, and the farmer, and all other people across this 
country. Instead all I hear in my district is: ``Enough is enough.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking in my 5-percent cut for the Members to send 
a signal, not only on this project, but also for fiscal responsibility, 
and all of us know that the Federal Government has a huge deficit. We 
must reduce and eliminate funding for those projects that are not vital 
to the economic well-being of our country. We must concentrate, Mr. 
Chairman, our scarce resources on what is absolutely necessary, not on 
what is simply desirable. I seriously question the validity of Federal 
funding for programs like this through the NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].


 amendment offered by mr. dicks to the amendment offered by mr. stearns

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will start the 2 minutes running after the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is read.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Stearns: On line 4 of the amendment, strike ``5'' and 
     insert ``1.5''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the budget for 
National Endowment for the Arts, which I think is a serious mistake, 
but we are faced with the prospect of a 5-percent cut, and I think that 
this cut is more rational and more reasonable.
  Mr. Chairman, this would be 1.5 percent. It would total $2.56 
million. This reduction would bring the Endowment's total budget down 
by $1 million below its current operating level of $170 million. This 
amount will reduce the National Endowment for the Arts' budget by $1.4 
million below the level of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations of $171.1 million, bringing the NEA's 
budget down to $169 million.
  Therefore, the substitute amendment serves as a vehicle for fiscal 
restraint for those Members who want to make a cut in the name of 
deficit reduction and fiscal conservatism.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment, however, is more responsible, 
in my judgment, than the Stearns amendment. The substitute will not 
devastate arts programs nor handicap critical initiatives. It will 
allow the chairman and the Endowment to, for example, use funding to 
allow for inner city youth outreach efforts with arts funding, an 
effort that can contribute to fighting crime, youth violence, and other 
urban problems.
  Last year, when the 5-percent amendment was put in place, the NEA had 
to cut 18 programs, primarily dance programs and theater such as opera 
and ballet, areas of the arts that have never been controversial but 
have had to pay a price nevertheless because of the Stearns amendment.
  A Stearns amendment for 1995 of a 5-percent cut would not actually be 
a 5-percent cut to a neutral base. On the contrary, it would mean a 10-
percent cut over 2 years. This would be devastating to arts programs 
throughout the country that already have threadbare funding. I remind 
my colleagues that in fiscal year 1979, the NEA's total budget was only 
$149 million. Since that year, real purchasing power for the NEA has 
eroded by 46 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks amendment to 
the Stearns amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a few moments to explain what has 
just happened.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has amended my amendment by 
changing it from 5 percent to 1.5 percent, Mr. Chairman. I would like 
to ask the gentleman a question. Will the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] answer a question?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, certainly.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that with the 
1.5-percent reduction, that he and his colleagues need to send a signal 
to the NEA that we need to cut the NEA now? Is that what the gentleman 
is saying by his amendment?
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think what we 
are trying to do is here is to minimize the damage to the National 
Endowment for the Arts. We have sent them a signal. There is language 
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and I and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] agreed to a couple of years ago that said, ``Go 
out and fund artistic excellence, and do not fund anything that is 
obscene under the law.''

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think what the 
gentleman is saying is that we do need to send a signal to the NEA. I 
believe it should be 5 percent, he believes it should be a 1\1/2\-
percent reduction. My concern is what I saw in the conference committee 
last year when they cut my 5-percent reduction 1\1/2\ percent.
  I ask my colleagues who are listening and on the House floor that 
obviously we want to vote no against the amendment to mine so that we 
can have the vote on the full 5 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the great movie producer Louis B. Mayer of Metro 
Goldwyn Mayer once said about movies with a message, if you want to use 
a message, he would tell his screen writers, ``If you want to send a 
message, use Western Union.''
  The problem is, when we use the U.S. Mails or our faxes and write to 
the people at NEA, we get what two of our good Members from the other 
body have said, and that is diverting language.
  Here is one of the Senators saying that Ms. Alexander has refused to 
respond in detail to a series of questions.
  He says:

       If she gives me the kind of half answers or non-answers 
     that she's given to Senator Byrd, we really have a problem. I 
     don't intend to let this slip through the cracks.

  Mr. Chairman, what my pal, the gentleman from the great State of 
Washington, wants to do is send them a tiny little telegram, kind of a 
gentle little knock where Jane Alexander says:

       Who's that knocking at the gold-dang door?
       Norm Dicks, trying to give you a gentle little cut before a 
     5 percent axe comes down.

  Mr. Chairman, how else do we rattle her cage? He wants to rattle it 
with a little gentle velvet glove. I just went from the bill of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] to take away half their money.
  Mr. Chairman, I am coming back next year with an amendment to give 
all this money, maybe an increase, to the high schools, because man 
does not live by bread alone. I will double this if it went to high 
school art classes, to put your wife in charge of this, a great patron 
of the arts. I cannot comprehend, and I repeat for the third time in 
two days, the mystery of how these porno freaks keep getting this 
money.
  Listen to this that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] read and 
it is worth reading again. Here is Ms. Alexander trying to blame the 
press.
  Here is the angry letter from the Minneapolis Star Tribune who broke 
the Athey story about all the AIDS-infected blood. Actually this is 
Jane Alexander defending it:

       Walker Art Center must defend its decision to stage a 
     performance involving human bloodletting and multilation--or 
     ritual sacrifice and erotic torture as the institution 
     describes it.

  Mr. Chairman, everybody on that side is not telling the truth. Jane 
Alexander defends this slopping around of AIDS-infected blood.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to disagree with the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  I have great respect for him. He knows how I feel about this. I think 
we are off on the wrong track. This is 0.02 percent of the Federal 
budget. This is education. This is the soul of many of the people who 
cannot get to the big cities to have the great arts education that is 
available there.
  Mr. Chairman, I live in the rural community. I had nothing when I was 
growing up. Because of the NEA and the New York State Council of the 
Arts, my children are better educated, they are more sensitive to the 
human condition around us. I think it is absolutely crazy. Frankly, I 
do not think this is a simple 5 percent, as the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Stearns] has said.
  Let us take a look at this thing. In 1991, a 4.2 percent reduction 
was suggested. In 1992, there was a cut of $3 million. In 1993, there 
was a cut of 5 percent. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] said 
this is a simple 5 percent. Frankly, my colleagues, this is an ill-
disguised attempt to absolutely eliminate the NEA, and I am against it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I will reluctantly support the Dicks 
amendment because what we have here is a case where the NEA and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], they have already been making cuts 
over the years. They have already squeezed this agency to the point 
where a lot of deserving arts projects throughout the country are not 
being funded. But I think the main reason that we should oppose the 
Stearns amendment is that we have an outstanding new director of the 
NEA, a world-renowned actress who is going all over the country and 
talking to the grassroots and dealing effectively with Republicans and 
Democrats. Jesse Helms has praised her for her openness. She has got a 
good start. She has done a good job. Why are we going to hamstring her?
  Let me tell Members what the 5 percent amendment does. What it does 
is it cuts $8.5 million from the program grant funds awarded by the 
arts endowment. It cuts $2.3 million from the basic State grants 
awarded to State arts agencies. Every one of our arts agencies is going 
to receive cuts between $32,000 and $42,000 a year. Cuts an undeserved 
almost $1 million from the rural communities that has been a new 
initiative of the NEA. Crime control programs that have been started 
through the arts would be severely cut by the 5 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all saying, it is only 5 percent, so let us go 
ahead and everybody can sustain a 5 percent cut. But the reality is 
that this agency has been getting cut, cut, cut, cut. They are already 
squeezed to the bone.
  Let us have a little strength and let us have a little courage and 
reject all of these amendments. Support the Dicks amendment. I wish 
that he did not have to offer it, but we are talking about a political 
reality here. Let us stand behind Jane Alexander; let us stand behind 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], who have done an excellent job 
in already making cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record documents in opposition to 
cutting funding for the NEA, as follows:

Statement by Bill Richardson, June 23, 1993, Opposing Stearns Amendment

       Before my colleagues think about cutting funding for the 
     NEA I want to remind you that federal arts funding benefits 
     every district in the country. The national endowment 
     benefits every region in the United States through state 
     grants, arts education, and anti-crime programming.
       35 percent of NEA funding goes to each state's art agency 
     in the form of a block grant. This amendment automatically 
     reduces the size of each states grants.
       Of this 35 percent each state must spend 7.5 percent of 
     these dollars on projects that serve rural, urban and 
     underserved communities.
       In New Mexico for the last seven years state grant monies 
     have funded the ``Churches'' project. Over 100 communities 
     have restored their historic churches because of the cultural 
     and artistic beauty they represent.
       A 5 percent cut in the NEA budget means reduced funding for 
     arts education.
       Last year a $22,000 grant to the Chamber Music Residencies 
     pilot project which placed chamber music ensembles in rural 
     communities for a school year. The chamber ensembles taught 
     children in public schools in Tifton Georgia, Jesup Iowa and 
     Dodge City Kansas who would not have otherwise had any music 
     education.
       The NEA will also have to reduce funding for crime control 
     programs. A youngster with a paint brush or learning lines 
     for a play is a lot less dangerous than one with a gun.
       NEA Anti-crime funds provide for programs like Arizona's 
     APPLE Corps which uses arts programs with anti-drug messages 
     as after school alternatives. Other anti-crime projects the 
     endowment funds include: Voices of Youth Throughout Vermont; 
     First Step Dance Company in Lawrence, Kansas; Boise Family 
     Center Project in Boise, Idaho; Arts in Atlanta Project; 
     Alternatives in L.A. program; and the Family Arts Agenda in 
     Salem Oregon.
                                  ____


            Impact of 5 Percent Funding Reduction Amendment

       A 5 percent reduction in the FY 1995 appropriation for the 
     National Endowment for the Arts would:
       Cut $8.5 million from the program grant funds awarded by 
     the Arts Endowment.
       Cut $2.3 million from the Basic State Grants awarded to 
     state arts agencies. Individual state arts agencies would 
     lose funding in a range of $32,000 to $42,000.
       Cut $638,000 from the Underserved Communities initiative 
     which supports projects in rural, innercity, and artistically 
     underserved areas.
                                  ____


    IMPACT OF 5-PERCENT FUNDING REDUCTION ON BASIC STATE GRANTS [BSG]   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Reduced                           
               State                   BSG FY    FY 1994   Difference\1\
                                        1995       BSG                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................   $450,000   $486,000      $36,000  
Alaska.............................    411,000    447,000       36,000  
Arizona............................    446,000    483,000       37,000  
Arkansas...........................    431,000    457,000       36,000  
California.........................    741,000    783,000       42,000  
Colorado...........................    442,000    479,000       37,000  
Connecticut........................    442,000    477,000       35,000  
Delaware...........................    412,000    448,000       36,000  
District of Columbia...............    411,000    447,000       36,000  
Florida............................    551,000    590,000       39,000  
Georgia............................    478,000    515,000       37,000  
Hawaii.............................    417,000    453,000       36,000  
Idaho..............................    416,000    452,000       36,000  
Illinois...........................    535,000    569,000       34,000  
Indiana............................    468,000    503,000       35,000  
Iowa...............................    436,000    471,000       35,000  
Kansas.............................    433,000    468,000       35,000  
Kentucky...........................    447,000    482,000       35,000  
Louisiana..........................    453,000    488,000       35,000  
Maine..............................    419,000    454,000       35,000  
Maryland...........................    459,000    495,000       36,000  
Massachusetts......................    473,000    507,000       34,000  
Michigan...........................    510,000    545,000       35,000  
Minnesota..........................    455,000    490,000       35,000  
Mississippi........................    434,000    469,000       35,000  
Missouri...........................    453,000    498,000       35,000  
Montana............................    414,000    449,000       35,000  
Nebraska...........................    423,000    458,000       35,000  
Nevada.............................    418,000    455,000       37,000  
New Hampshire......................    417,000    453,000       36,000  
New Jersey.........................    492,000    527,000       35,000  
New Mexico.........................    422,000    458,000       36,000  
New York...........................    607,000    641,000       34,000  
North Carolina.....................    480,000    516,000       36,000  
North Dakota.......................    412,000    447,000       35,000  
Ohio...............................    528,000    562,000       34,000  
Oklahoma...........................    440,000    476,000       36,000  
Oregon.............................    437,000    473,000       36,000  
Pennsylvania.......................    540,000    573,000       33,000  
Puerto Rico........................    446,000    479,000       33,000  
Rhode Island.......................    416,000    451,000       35,000  
South Carolina.....................    444,000    480,000       36,000  
South Dakota.......................    412,000    448,000       36,000  
Tennessee..........................    460,000    496,000       36,000  
Texas..............................    598,000    636,000       38,000  
Utah...............................    424,000    460,000       36,000  
Vermont............................    411,000    447,000       36,000  
Virginia...........................    425,000    511,000       36,000  
Washington.........................    460,000    497,000       37,000  
West Virginia......................    425,000    460,000       35,000  
Wisconsin..........................    461,000    496,000       35,000  
Wyoming............................    411,000    446,000       35,000  
American Samoa.....................    201,000    201,000            0  
Guam...............................    201,000    201,000            0  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Amount each State will lose if the Stearns amendment passes.         

                                  ____


       Federal Arts Funding Reaches Every District in the Country

       Achieving geographic diversity in making grants is one of 
     the National Endowment for the Arts' highest priorities.
       The Arts Endowment continually makes a concerted effort to 
     encourage applicants from all states, regions, and 
     communities. Consequently, the success rate of applicants 
     from less populous states in receiving grant awards is often 
     much higher than for applicants from the large states.
       For example, less than one-quarter of the applications 
     received from California and New York are funded.
       40% or more of the applications received from Alaska, 
     Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and 
     Wyoming are funded.
       Thirty-one states have 25-40% of their applications funded.
       The Endowment's Underserved Communities Initiative, which 
     is supported by 7.5 percent of the Endowment's program funds, 
     specifically supports projects to broaden public access to 
     the arts in rural and innercity areas and other areas that 
     are underserved artistically.
       Currently $8.7 million is earmarked for this initiative, 
     administered through 5 Endowment programs--State & Regional, 
     Local Arts Agencies, Folk Arts, Expansion Arts, and 
     Presenting & Commissioning.
       Since its implementation in FY 1991, grants have been 
     awarded under this initiative in all 50 states to benefit 
     their underserved communities.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support Chairman Yates. I have 
supported every amendment and support his bill. I think the gentleman 
is one of the best chairmen, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns], however. I think it is time to ask, is an 
AIDS-tainted bloody towel strung out over a theater audience a work or 
a demonstration of art? Is a crucifix submerged in a vial filled with 
urine a work of art? Is a broomstick literally placed up the rectum of 
an individual captured on film a work of art? If so, Congress, then I 
say there is no art, there is no distinction from the type of art that 
our cultural roots compel us to fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard talk about this amendment must be reduced 
because we must minimize the damage of the Stearns amendment to the 
National Endowment for the Arts. I say the Congress should pass Stearns 
to minimize the damage to the American people by the National Endowment 
for the Arts. If we want to get their attention, the only way is in the 
pocketbook. I am asking everybody to vote for Stearns. It is a 
realistic message from a realistic Member on a goal that all Congress 
should support.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served in the House for 8 years and it has been 
a great privilege to do so. Throughout those 8 years, I have watched 
every year as the appropriations bills come through this House and 
Congress decided what mattered and what did not to the people of the 
country.

                              {time}  1200

  We spent a lot of money on our military defense, one-third of our 
budget. Because of that, we are now the remaining superpower in the 
world.
  But not once in these 8 years, as we voted for the military budget, 
did we ever fret about planes that would not fly, guns that would not 
shoot, troop carriers named Bradley that would not float. Were we 
concerned about fraud, cost overruns? No. We just throw in some more 
money for star wars.
  But we have got this one little program here, $171 million to serve 
every nook and cranny of the United States. To put it in some 
perspective, that is less money than we spend yearly on military bands.
  For every one of those dollars we spend, we get back $11, and the 
arts in the United States of America last year generated $36.8 billion.
  I defy anyone who serves in this body to tell me that anything else 
we spend gives any kind of return even remotely like that.
  But the return beyond the monetary is even more important. Every day 
we talk about what is happening to American children. We have reports 
daily about the condition of America's children. They have the lowest 
scores in the world as entry level college students. Their math scores 
are deplorable. They are damaged by the diet of violence they see every 
day. What shall we do about it? We have found one way to help.
  We can prove conclusively that money we have spent on children who 
are involved in the arts receives new esteem, gives them the self-
respect, they become better students, we can show it cuts out the 
dropout program, and we know that children who have been damaged can 
heal themselves when they have this kind of way to allow their emotions 
to surface and be expressed. Then they can deal with them.
  I have watched children in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of New York 
City as young as 3 years old learning the discipline of the dance. The 
lesson is if you care about yourself and you work hard, there is 
nothing in the world that will ever stand in your way.
  If we want to turn children away from violence, if we want to make 
them better students, if we want to stop them from dropping out of 
school, if we want our country to be able to compete in the next 
century, and if this little pittance of money that we spend here will 
go at least part way in helping us do that, is that not money well 
spent? Does not our national security also depend on a population that 
is educated, that has some sense of giving back, that learns some 
decency, some humanity, some gentleness? Is there something wrong with 
that?
  Where are the poets going to come from? The artists? Where are the 
people who chronicle who we are? Our history in every civilization 
rediscovered, we determine if they were civilized or educated of if 
they contributed by the art they leave behind.
  For heaven's sakes, do not support the Stearns amendment. This 
program is already less than it was in 1979. It has been cut 43 percent 
since then. Enough.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I come as a strong supporter of the arts who is going 
to reluctantly support this amendment.
  I happened to have been a music major in college. I am on the 
Congressional Arts Caucus. I believe strongly in the place of the arts 
in American society. I have a son who is at the Interlaken Music Camp 
for the summer. My children are all involved in the arts. I am involved 
with the Ohio Chamber Orchestra, the Cleveland Opera.
  You could say that I am a sucker for the arts. I believe in it. Why? 
Because I think probably, next to religious education, artistic 
expression is the most important thing we can offer in terms of the 
redemption and the renewal and the giving back of America, the values 
that have made it great.
  But it seems to me I had a very disturbing luncheon experience 
yesterday which leads me to want to support this amendment, and that is 
that I had lunch with the Congressional Arts Caucus, and we had the 
honor of being with the chairperson, Jane Alexander. We had lunch with 
Jane. Frankly, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ms. Alexander 
and the work that she has done.

  But I was extremely disturbed, first of all, when I found out about 
the Ron Athey exhibit in Minnesota. I had not been aware of it until 
that lunch yesterday, and I read the letter Ms. Alexander had written 
to Members of Congress in response to that, and I asked her 
specifically if Athey's performance, if Athey had personally directed 
his grant request to the NEA directly as opposed to the Walker Center, 
would the NEA have granted that kind of request. What we are talking 
about is the self-mutilation that was advertised as ``erotic torture.'' 
That is how is was promoted by the Walker Center. And I said, ``Ms. 
Alexander, would you or would you not have funded this from the NEA 
directly, this grant request?'' And she could not say to me, ``No, we 
would not. This does not match our standards.''
  And what is disturbing to me is that the idea is that we are going to 
fund artistic excellence, and if that is what we are doing, then what 
on Earth does this tell us about the leadership at the NEA? That is my 
concern. That is why I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  I encourage my colleagues to also.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment on the economics 
of this cut, that we are already 43 percent behind inflation, that we 
cut 5 percent last year, and that we are starting from that base this 
year. I am not going to comment on the economics that the arts generate 
so much economic business for our country. We have heard all of that.
  I am going to comment on the intent of this amendment in terms of 
censorship, in terms of the un-American goal of saying that we should 
exercise Federal censorship over the arts.
  The National Endowment for the Arts promotes private art. It has 
committees to make decisions on who gets grants. There will always be 
one or two decisions, one or two grants that one can disagree with, 
that Members of this body will not like or that can be mischaracterized 
as obscene.
  Some people think the art of Mr. Athey at the Walker Center is 
obscene. But it is not up to us to make that decision. Nor is it up to 
us to cut the budget of the NEA to send them a message.
  Judgments will still have to be made by review committees, and we 
should not establish a political layer of censorship on top of the 
artistic decisions made as to who gets grants and for what.
  In this case, the NEA gave a grant to the Walker Arts Center, one of 
the most prestigious arts centers in the Midwest. That grant was used 
for over 100 different arts events. One of them was a $150 grant to 
help Mr. Athey's exhibit, which some people here characterize as 
obscene, which some people slander and talk about HIV-positive blood 
and so forth, which was not the case.
  But it is not up to us to make those decisions, and if we cut this 
budget by 5 percent, they are still going to have to make decisions.
  And are we going to set up the Congress, a political body, a bunch of 
politicians, as a board of censors for the NEA?
  The point is the NEA makes those decisions, and that is the only 
place they can be made.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns 
amendment to cut 5 percent of the budget for the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentlewoman's words be 
taken down.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I think the arts should not be censored. As Frederic 
Lewis Allen, the noted historian, said----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will withhold for a moment.
  Specifically what words does the gentleman demand be taken down? Her 
last sentence?
  Mr. STEARNS. No. Mr. Chairman, when she started talking about women's 
breasts and who she ascribed that to, that comment. We would like to 
find out who she is saying said that comment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the last few sentences of the 
gentlewoman's remarks.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Nadler earlier said the same thing, but the point is 
we just want to establish who she is saying said this.
  Mr. Chairman, can we have the----
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
  Mr. YATES. I do not think Mr. Nadler did, made reference.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we are just talking about the present 
speaker.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] was made of the present speaker's remarks, and the Clerk is in 
the process of getting ready to read back the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from New York.

                              {time}  1210

  So let us wait until the Clerk has read.
  The Chair would point out that the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole does not rule on this kind of an objection.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this matter may be resolved by the words 
being withdrawn, is that not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. It would take unanimous consent.
  Mr. WALKER. Since the words were offensive, all they have to do is be 
withdrawn by unanimous consent, and I doubt anybody would object to 
that.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, what are the offensive words? What are the 
words to be withdrawn?
  Mr. WALKER. About the last two sentences.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       The Stearns amendments wants to censor, but what did Mr. 
     Stearns say to a Member of Congress who commented on the size 
     of a woman's breasts?

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if I understand that, I do not believe I 
ever said something like that.
  Mr. YATES. She did not say ``you'' did say it. She says ``a Member of 
Congress.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Regular order. This is not debatable, as I understand.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not debatable.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois have a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I object to it because I think she is 
ascribing motivations to me which are not there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Members will withhold until----
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the words be read 
again. I do not think they appertain to----
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the words slowly.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       The Stearns amendment wants to censor, but what did Mr. 
     Stearns say to a Member of Congress who commented on the size 
     of a woman's breasts?

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think it still sort of indicates some 
kind of motivation on my part, and I feel it is sort of negative.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point this is not debatable.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The Chairman just answered it in response 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not debatable. So the Members will just withhold.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the offending 
works, whatever they are, be withdrawn so that we may proceed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee asks unanimous consent 
that the words that were read be withdrawn.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. STEARNS. No objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairs hears none.
  The words are withdrawn.
  The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] may proceed.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Louis Allen, the noted 
historian, said, ``America has something special, a culture which we do 
not think of as something for the elite, but as something that is 
accessible to practically everyone.''
  Over the last 30 years the NEA has clearly and successfully made the 
arts more accessible to more of the American public. And there is a 
significant economic benefit to this investment.
  According to the Department of Labor, more than 1.3 million people 
work directly in the field of the arts, and the nonprofit arts industry 
alone generates $3.4 billion alone in income tax revenue every year.
  The total funding for the NEA is $171 million per year, or less than 
70 cents per person.
  For that 70 cents, all Americans share in theater, dance, and museums 
to which they might not otherwise have access.
  Mr. Chairman, society defines itself by the way it preserves and 
presents its culture as much as by its investments in new technologies 
or in defense systems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I do not support the cut of 5 percent for the 
National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] unless every Federal agency will 
have a 5-percent cut. I regret disagreeing with my good friend from 
Florida, Mr. Stearns. He and I went to the Rules Committee last year 
and we tried to get a proposal before this House which would have cut 
most Federal agencies across the board by limiting their growth.
  I do support the 1.5-percent cut as the least bad alternative. This 
debate reminds me of some of those in this Chamber who waved the $800 
hammer; they were not really talking about the stupidity of procuring 
the $800 hammer in the Department of Defense. What the hammer-wavers 
really wanted was to abolish most or all of the Defense Department. 
They simply did not like spending money on defense.
  What we have here is an art exhibit in question that the NEA did not 
know about. The NEA gave a general support grant to the Walker Center 
in Minneapolis. It is one of America's distinguished museums. When the 
NEA gave that grant money to the Walker Center, it did not know that 
this exhibit would occur. So, if you adopt the Stearns amendment, you 
are punishing an agency that had no knowledge of this particular 
exhibit. And it sounds exactly like the $800 hammer nonsense, which was 
a way to get at the Defense Department.
  The National Endowment for the Arts has had tens of thousands of 
grants which have brought enlightenment, hope, and joy to millions of 
our fellow citizens. That should be recognized.
  I would simply say, ``Let us support the Dicks amendment and then let 
us get on with the business of the day.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, in Escondido, CA, in my district, we 
have a very beautiful, brand new arts center in which the National 
Endowment for the Arts gave a grant. Many other people have 
contributed, just trying to get it going.
  NEA has given some effort in that area. But most people in my 
district do not want their tax dollars going for a project like that. I 
personally gave $1,000 to the symphony, San Diego Symphony, and pledged 
to give money to the Escondido Arts Center, over $1,000. I give 
literally thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to education, but I 
feel it is wrong for me to force other people to take money out of 
their pockets for projects that they do not want to give money to. That 
is what the NEA does.
  People want a chance to choose where they want to put their money, 
not to be forced by a bureaucracy to have money go for arts in areas 
they do not want it to go. So, for that reason I support the amendment 
and ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield I minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues here today to support 
my amendment to Mr. Stearns' amendment. Again, I reiterate that it cuts 
1.5 percent, which is a total of $2.55 million. Although that is a 
substantial reduction, I do it to minimize the damage to the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  Last year we adopted the Stearns amendment, which totaled about $9 
million. It affected 18 separate programs in the Endowment.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on the other side on both sides of 
the aisle, why doesn't somebody get up here and focus on the positive 
things that we have done with the National Endowment for the Arts with 
over 100,000 grants that weren't controversial, that help the operas, 
the ballets, help individual artists all over the country?
  The Endowment has been a positive factor since 1965, not a negative 
factor, and this committee has fought to put in language that says, 
``You cannot fund anything that is obscene, and you must strive for 
artistic excellence.''
  Mr. Chairman, this program deserves the support of the Congress.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that in 1989 
we funded NEA at $169 million. Today it is roughly $171 million. So, 
for all those colleagues that say we have cut, cut, cut, there have not 
been these cuts that they have talked about. So, frankly this 5 percent 
would bring it down a little bit lower than in 1989.
  The second statement I hear continually is that this is a great 
investment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York talked 
about it and said that we are spending $171 million, and I think her 
words were ``we are getting $138 billion back in return.'' Now 
obviously the return on this investment is because there is a lot of 
private investment, too, but that already exits, quite apart from NEA.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say, just in conclusion, what we have 
here. We in Congress have an amendment to cut 5 percent. There will be 
a vote on my amendment. So, for those Members who are scared they will 
not get another chance to vote for my amendment, they will, so I ask 
them to vote no on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] and yes on the amendment offered by myself, 
which is 5 percent. Surely we can cut 5 percent, and surely, if it goes 
to conference, it is going to be cut in half again. So, if we take 1\1/
2\ percent, and take it to conference, it is going to come down to next 
to nothing. History has shown that the NEA has not been cut like my 
good friend from New Mexico said.
  So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Dicks amendment, and then 
we will have a vote on the Stearns amendment which will follow to 
reduce funding by 5 percent.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] was correct in stating what 
the NEA received in 1989. But unfortunately that does not tell the 
entire truth. In 1992, Mr. Chairman, the NEA received $175 million, $6 
million more than the gentleman's figure for 1989. So, when he says 
that by recommending less, that he is not hurting the NEA much, the NEA 
is being hurt very, very much.
  I have listened to the various gentlemen on the other side and on my 
side denouncing the NEA and Jane Alexander for the grant that was made 
to the Walker Arts Center in Minneapolis. The Walker Arts Center is one 
of the great art institutions of the city, and NEA, under its present 
practices, makes grants, and the Walker Arts Center and others in the 
country are given the opportunity to make subgrants. For a while some 
years back, Mr. Chairman, we put language in the bill which required 
that the subgrants come back to the NEA for approval. Perhaps we ought 
to do that again because NEA did not know how this money was going to 
be spent in the series of subgrants.
  At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I take issue with charges that have been 
made against the NEA. I think NEA is one of the great agencies in our 
country. I think it has an outstanding staff. I think that Jane 
Alexander is one of the great administrators; she has proved that 
already in connection with her administration of NEA and, I think, if 
she is allowed to do her job properly without the attacks that are 
going on, that we will see a flourishing NEA. We will see an arts 
community in the country which will respond to and flower as a result 
of her efforts and NEA's efforts.
  I hope that the efforts to cut this appropriation are defeated.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to any 
sort of reduction or elimination of Federal funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  As the primary sponsor of the Community Arts Partnership Act, a 
program which was included in House-passed H.R. 6, the reauthorization 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I understand the 
valuable role that the arts and humanities play in every American's 
life. Through my work on the Community Arts Partnership Act, I have 
become increasingly aware of the tremendous impact that the arts and 
humanities have in the education of our children.
  In fact, national studies have dramatically shown that the arts and 
humanities play an invaluable role in educating our children. The arts 
have been shown to aid in the development of higher-order thinking 
skills; an increase in multicultural understanding; an enhanced 
learning environment; improved self-esteem and positive emotional 
responses to learning; and engagement of a variety of learning styles. 
In addition, children who receive instruction in the arts remain in 
school longer and are more successful than children who do not receive 
such instruction.
  The important work undertaken by the NEA and the NEH significantly 
expands beyond the educational concept behind my Community Arts 
Partnership Act. Through the agencies' leadership, public participation 
and access to the arts and humanities has been enhanced, support for 
cultural diversity has been expanded, and local economies have been 
strengthened through jobs creation and tax revenues. In addition, for 
every Federal dollar allocated to the NEA and NEH, substantial funding 
is leveraged through private and other public resources. Without 
continued Federal leadership, thousands of communities across the 
Nation, and the quality of life for their residents, will be severely 
impacted through the elimination or reduction in local cultural 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendment which would weaken the 
important work undertaken by the NEA and NEH.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], as 
amended or not, following the vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] if there is no intervening debate 
or business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 189, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--240

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Harman
     Hochbrueckner
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Schumer
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington

                              {time}  1247

  Messrs. EDWARDS of Texas, DORNAN, LEWIS of Georgia, McCOLLUM, 
GILLMORE, and ABERCROMBIE, changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CARR, HINCHEY, HILLIARD, KIM, FORD of Michigan, HOUGHTON, 
POMEROY, and PALLONE, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


  AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BACHUS OF ALABAMA AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE 
       AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS, AS AMENDED BY MR. DICKS

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bachus of Alabama as a substitute 
     for the amendment as amended: Strike the language proposed 
     and insert the following:


                          REDUCTION OF FUNDING

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title for ``National Endowment for the Arts'' is hereby 
     reduced by 4.99 percent.


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a nondebatable substitute under the time 
limitation. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it is not in 
order as an amendment to the substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would rule that under rule XIX it is in order 
as a substitute for the Stearns amendment assembled by the Dicks 
amendment, but it is not debatable.

                              {time}  1250


 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YATES TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BACHUS 
OF ALABAMA AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS, AS 
                                AMENDED.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Yates to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Bachus of Alabama as a substitute for the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Stearns, as amended: On line 4 of the 
     amendment, strike ``4.99'' and insert ``1.0''.


                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, for those who have not been 
following the debate, does this mean 4.99 percent down to 1 percent?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is a reduction of the bill amount by 1 
percent.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, did the Chair say a reduction of 1 percent 
from 4.99 or a reduction to 1 percent from 4.99?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment would change the reduction of 4.99 
percent in the Bachus substitute to a reduction of 1 percent.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, is it not an increase in total 
appropriations?
  The CHAIRMAN. That may not be an appropriate parliamentary inquiry. 
The overall effect of the amendment would still be a reduction of 
amounts in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to rule XXIII, the 
Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if 
ordered, on the Bachus substitute, as amended, and following the vote 
on the Yates amendment thereto, if there is no intervening debate or 
business.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 214, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--214

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (TN)
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Schumer
     Towns
     Washington

                              {time}  1309

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Schumer for, with Mr. Machtley against.

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN and Messrs. KIM, CRAMER, and CRAPO changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SCHENK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXIII, the Committee 
rises.

                              {time}  1310

  Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXIII the Committee rose; and the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Brown of California) 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, directs him to 
report that on a recorded vote on an amendment the votes of the 
Delegates and of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico were 
decisive.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Yates to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Bachus of Alabama as a substitute for the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Stearns, as amended: On line 4 of the 
     amendment, strike ``4.99'' and insert ``1.0.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the 
Chair will now put the question de novo on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  the vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 216, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--216

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     de la Garza
     Ford (TN)
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McKinney
     Towns
     Washington

                              {time}  1334

  Mr. CASTLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment, as amended, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of California). Pursuant to rule 
XXIII, clause 2(d). The Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 4602.

                              {time}  1335


                     in the committee of the whole

  Acordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4602, with Mr. Glickman in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by Mr. Yates to the Bachus substitute has been 
adopted on a recorded vote on which the votes cast by the delegates and 
the resident commissioner were decisive.
  That result has since been reversed by the House. Accordingly, the 
amendment offered by Mr. Yates to the Bachus substitute is not agreed 
to.


 amendment offered by mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by mr. bachus 
of alabama as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. stearns, as 
                                amended

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Bachus of Alabama as a substitute for the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Stearns, as amended: In line 4 of the 
     substitute amendment strike ``4.99'' and insert ``2.0''

  The CHAIRMAN. There is no debate on this amendment, pursuant to the 
unanimous consent request earlier on.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bachus] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] as amended.
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, 
if ordered, will be taken on the pending question.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 204, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--204

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Markey
     Minge
     Towns
     Washington
     Waxman
     Wyden

                              {time}  1353

  So the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], as 
amended.
  The amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the amendment, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 380, 
noes 41, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 270]

                               AYES--380

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NOES--41

     Abercrombie
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Johnston
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     McKinney
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Sabo
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Waters
     Watt
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton
     Clay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (TN)
     Gonzalez
     Istook
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Oxley
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Strickland
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1406

  Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, DIXON, and DELLUMS, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. MALONEY, 
Mrs. LOWEY, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
have asked him to do so for the purpose of getting his and the 
subcommittee's clarification of the action regarding the road 
maintenance budget of the Forest Service.
  Is it the chairman's intent that this bill includes funding for 
reconstruction of the Koocanusa Bridge, which is located on the 
Kootenai National Forest in Northwest Montana?
  Mr. YATES. The committee understands the importance of this project 
to the gentleman from Montana and in providing a budget level for road 
maintenance which is $1 million less than the President's request, it 
is the committee's intention that under this bill the project will move 
forward next year.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Regarding the $1 million reduction in the road 
maintenance budget, was it the committee's intent that this be taken 
across the board or from one particular region?
  Mr. YATES. The committee intended that this reduction be taken across 
the board, appropriately balanced among all regions of the Forest 
Service.


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 58, line 9, strike 
     ``$445,544,000'' and insert ``$418,271,000''.


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent it be considered en bloc with the amendment just 
offered.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 59, line 9, strike 
     ``$824,585,000'' and insert ``$834,585,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his first amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand 
the gentleman from Wisconsin is agreeable to a time restriction of 30 
minutes for consideration of this amendment and all amendments thereto, 
with 15 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] and 15 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I am agreeable, with the caveat that if this 
one passes, we will then discuss the second one.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer this as a unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time limit is 30 minutes total 
time on this amendment and all amendments thereto, equally divided 
between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This series of amendments is an attempt to cut $28 million which 
represents the President's funding levels for coal technology research 
and to save roughly half of that money or a little bit more than half 
of that money and also shift, if we are successful in the original cut, 
about $10 million into additional conservation programs.
  The administration requested $128 million for coal research and 
development, and the committee has put $155 million into this bill. So 
the Interior appropriation one more time is more than $27 million what 
the administration wanted.
  Even under these cuts, we still continue to invest roughly 27 percent 
of the fossil fuel budget into coal research and technology. That is a 
reduction right now from a level of about 39 percent.
  My colleagues should keep in mind that for the 1970's and through the 
1980's, we funded a wide array of potential markets for coal from 
electric power to industrial processes to residential and commercial 
heating. If Members check the long history of these projects, we 
discovered we have funded some of them since the early 1940's. I 
believe that at a time when we have shrinking resources, it makes more 
sense to move to emerging technologies rather than to continue to fund 
technologies that have been worked since the 1940's.
  This actually confirms what the authorizing committee has attempted 
to do. This is an October 5, 1992 colloquy between the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] on the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology on their understanding of the coal and research development 
authorization in the Energy Policy Act.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] said:

       In the titles XIII which authorizes coal research and 
     development of $278 million, $139,000 is authorized for 1993. 
     This is $42 million less than the current funding level and 
     sets the policy of the Federal Government that starts with 
     graduating that mature technology to the private sector.

  In other words, the Government should be weaned from the program.
  And then he asks, ``Would the gentleman from California be good 
enough to confirm this is the intent of the committee?''
  And the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the chairman of the 
Science Authorization Committee says, ``I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I would like to state that this is exactly my 
understanding.''
  Now, one quick example, since the early 1940's, there has been an 
ongoing coal liquefaction research and development project. But the 
private sector cost of this program is only about 12 percent. So we 
have been doing it for 45 years, and the private sector still does not 
see enough of an investment that they really allow us to pay more than 
88 percent of the cost of the research projects. If industry does not 
have any confidence in this program after more than 50 years, why 
should we? I do not think it is necessary for the Federal Government to 
continue to fund it, and that is why we would like to see a substantial 
cutback and also attempting to move some money into the conservation 
program itself.
  Let me make it very clear that the Executive Office of the President, 
the OMB, sent a statement over yesterday saying, ``The Administration 
urges the House to restore $27 million to fund important initiatives, 
and this could be achieved by reducing lower priority items funded 
under the Fossil Energy Research and Development Act.''
  That is exactly what we are attempting to do at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, in brief, we have had similar cuts on this program in 
the past which have all passed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] was successful last year. The administration has attempted to 
reduce these funding levels. The Senate continues to protect them and 
so we find ourselves year after year after year having the same debate.
  I think, clearly, since we have been funding projects since the 
1940's which have not had commercial payoffs yet, since we are facing a 
$200 billion deficit, it is absolutely appropriate that we reduce the 
funding levels to the administration's concerns, bank a chunk of it and 
put the rest in conservation programs which, in my mind, have a 
priority, a higher priority. And it is the same higher priority in this 
case that the Clinton administration even supports the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have go to set the record straight here.
  No. 1, this cut will come out of coal, oil, and gas, because they are 
lumped together in the bill.
  The amount in the bill for coal is $155 million. The amount in the 
bill for oil and gas is $201 million.
  This cut will come out of both.
  It is important that we do the continuing research, because as stated 
by the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, economic growth and clean 
environmental achievements in the 21st century, that is out the next 
100 years, need high-efficiency fossil fuel technologies.
  What we are talking about here is the research needed to perfect 
these fossil fuel technologies.
  It was stated that there is a very small industry match. I would 
point out that the average is 20 percent industry, private sector; 80, 
public, and in the clean coal program, it is a minimum of 50/50.
  We are not going to nuclear in this country. Let us face it. Fifty-
five percent of our Nation's electricity comes from coal; 40 percent of 
the world's electricity comes from coal. We are going to be using coal 
and oil and gas as far into the future as we can see, because nuclear 
is off the board.
  Therefore, it is vitally important that we continue the research. But 
let us also make it clear that this is not a reduction from the 
President's number in total. As a matter of act, it is down under last 
year's level by $2 million, and it is inconsistent with the President's 
request in terms of a total amount for coal and oil and gas.
  I have got to emphasize that we are not just talking about coal here. 
We are talking about coal, oil, and gas. I would point out also that in 
terms of Btu's, the production of energy, from the U.S. coal reserves 
is equal, equal to all of the world's known oil reserves, all the oil 
in the world, we equal with coal.
  But we have got to be able to use our coal in an environmentally safe 
way. That is what this research is all about.
  I think it would be foolish at this juncture to go below last year, 
to go below the President's request and, certainly, for those of my 
colleagues that were here in the late 1970's, and even if they were not 
here, they remember the energy crisis. We were doing all kinds of 
things. People were sitting in gasoline lines and, as we look at the 
numbers prospectively, we will be dependent on foreign sources for oil 
and gas, up to about 70 percent. We are probably at about 50 percent 
today.
  We absolutely need to use our coal to produce electricity. We need to 
think of ways to enhance the oil and gas reserves of this Nation so we 
are not dependent on foreign energy resources in a world of turmoil and 
particularly in the Middle East for 60 to 70 percent of our energy 
resources.
  I think it is vitally important that we continue the research on the 
ways to burn coal environmentally safely, that we continue research to 
enhance our oil and gas production. There are millions of Btu's in the 
ground that can be recovered if we develop the right techniques.
  I would lastly point out what the Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
Energy said in the committee hearing.

       The recommendations (for further reductions) appear to be 
     based on the assumption of a rapid transition away from 
     fossil fuels, particularly coal, to an energy infrastructure 
     dominated by energy conservation and reliance on renewable 
     energy sources. At some point in the future that transition 
     may indeed occur, but it is doubtful it will occur as rapidly 
     as assumed and, in any event, as shown by the EIA 
     projections, it is not going to happen in the next 20 years. 
     Further cuts in the coal R&D budget will delay or possibly 
     eliminate the potential for use of cleaner, more efficient 
     U.S.-based coal technology throughout the world. However, as 
     projected by the EIA, worldwide coal use will continue to 
     increase. In this event, the coal utilization technology 
     employed will be existing, less environmentally sound 
     systems, or, more likely, the technology gap will be filled 
     by our European and Japanese competitors who continue to work 
     aggressively on developing cleaner coal-power systems 
     technology.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important to the energy future of this 
Nation, that we continue our research on coal, oil, and gas to make it 
environmentally safe and to extend the use and make our Nation 
independent of offshore sources.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what was said in the committee hearing 
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] quoted from, but also let me 
point out that the Executive Office of the President has sent down a 
letter telling us that they support the cut, and moving more money to 
additional programs in fossil energy and research. So for now, the 
administration is on our side, despite what was said in the earlier 
hearing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], one of the cosponsors of this bill, along with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues, the gentlemen from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug and Mr. Kleczka] in offering this bipartisan 
amendment to reduce the appropriation for coal research and 
development.
  Mr. Chairman, the President is right on this one. Last year the House 
was right in voting overwhelmingly to reduce this program by $49 
million. Today we simply ask that the House cut this appropriation by 
$28 million and bring the appropriation in line with the President's 
request.
  Coal is hardly a new energy source, Mr. Chairman. Research and 
development in the private sector is well established. It is high time 
Congress reduces subsidies to these mature technologies. With a 
projected deficit in this country in the $200 billion range, we simply 
cannot afford to continue these subsidies.
  Our amendment is supported by several national taxpayers' groups, the 
National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste, to name 
but two. This would save the American taxpayers at least $18 million. 
Our amendment is also supported by several environmental groups: 
Friends of the Earth, the National Resources Defense Fund, and 
Environmental Action. It would dedicate $10 million to energy 
conservation, which is very, very crucial at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us cast a vote for fiscal responsibility. Let us 
cast a vote for environmental responsibility at the same time. Let us 
bring the spending level down to President Clinton's request. Support 
the Klug-Ramstad-Kleczka amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I know most of the Members will find this 
interesting, that I am opposing the amendment of my best friend in the 
Congress, but I think the amendment is going in the wrong direction. We 
are trying to cut funding in this Congress, we are trying to save 
money, but we also realize that we have a responsibility in this 
Congress to make sure that there is proper investment in our country in 
areas where the private sector cannot do it alone.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at the energy needs of this country, no 
one can look the other way when it comes to coal. We have vast 
resources of coal in this country, but because it has high sulfur in 
some cases, because of the particulate matter involved in it, if we can 
find ways to have cleaner coal technology developed in this country, we 
are going to do our children and their children in the next generations 
behind us a very, very big favor.
  So while we want to reduce spending, and we want to cut expenditures, 
we should not be penny wise and pound foolish. That is exactly what 
this amendment does. This basic research that is done in clean coal 
technology will benefit our Nation.
  In Ohio, we have a separate fund that has been developed, that takes 
the basic research that is done out of this program, adds more money to 
it to try to commercialize those process. I think this is exactly the 
type of program that the Federal Government ought to have.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday I opposed an amendment on the NEA because I 
did not think it was within the proper scope of the Federal Government 
to be involved in it. This is the kind of project, though, that is 
within the scope of what the U.S. Congress ought to be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  I am proud to represent a significant part of the largest anthracite 
deposit of coal in this country. Anthracite coal is a low-sulfur 
burning fuel that has a future. It has a future in industrial use, it 
has a future in domestic use. More importantly and most significantly, 
great progress has been made recently in the process of turning 
anthracite coal into a gasoline component.
  As the previous speaker mentioned earlier, we are too dependent on 
foreign oil in this country, and we have large deposits of anthracite 
coal and bituminous coal that can be of great use to us if we face 
another energy crisis. I ask all my colleagues in the House to oppose 
the amendment and keep investing in our future, keep investing in 
research and development, in rich coal deposits that we have in this 
country.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to talk a little bit about the importance 
of this research in the energy future of this country. Just this 
morning we talked considerably about offshore oil. We talked about the 
domestic oil industry and its decline. We talked about what we are 
going to do in the longrun future. We talked about the future of gas, 
and particularly, coal, coal being, I suspect, the greatest volume of 
energy that we have available, particularly for electric power 
generation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to find ways to use this abundant energy 
resource in better ways than we do now. For example, we have coal that 
costs $5 or $6 in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, but costs $27 or 
$28 in Texas. We need to find ways to make that more efficient.
  We have to find ways to continue to reduce the water content, for 
example, and increase the Btu content so shipping costs can go down, so 
this can be more efficient. That is what this is designed to do.
  Mr. Chairman, this kind of research is essential, it seems to me, to 
the future of our economy. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the ranking Republican on the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman for his amendment, and it is 
an amendment that I have brought to the floor on several occasions in 
the past. I want to agree with a lot of people who have talked about 
the importance of the coal research and what goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, I never have had any doubt about that whatsoever. Coal 
is one of our most important natural resources. It is an energy source 
of the future. We need to figure out ways to utilize it better.
  Mr. Chairman, here is my problem with the programs that we have in 
place right now. Instead of being leading edge R&D programs, what we 
have is a lot of programs that are basically on a research and 
development life support system. They are programs where we have proven 
the technology, where we know how to do it.
  The problem is that what we have found out is that having gotten 
there, it is too expensive to put into the energy stream. In order to 
keep the technologies alive, we have put them on an R&D life support 
system, rather than going to the commercialization.
  Mr. Chairman, my point is R&D always ought to be aimed at making 
certain that we are out on the leading edge, finding the new 
technologies that make things better. In this particular case, what we 
have is an inability to commercialize what we have already found out 
because it is too expensive, and therefore we are retaining it on life 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we can do is assure that all of the money 
heads toward doing real leading edge R&D. That is fine. What we ought 
to do is withdraw the programs where we have already found out that 
they know how to do it and it is just too expensive to commercialize. 
That it seems to me to be something that the taxpayers can no longer 
afford to do. That is a subsidy which, in my view, does not constitute 
research and development.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in the committee we rejected an $18 million 
subsidy for fuel cells for the very reason the gentleman says, because 
it is commercial. Therefore, it should be sold and developed 
commercially. Coal, oil and gas research has not quite reached that 
point. That is our concern.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  They say in politics for every issue that is debated, there is a good 
reason and a real reason for a vote. I will leave it to those listening 
to reach their conclusion on what I have to say. I would like to at 
least preface my remarks by saying that when the gentleman from 
Minnesota and the gentleman from Wisconsin come before us and say we 
are talking about a subsidy to the coal industry, they are dead wrong. 
We are talking about a Federal investment in energy research to try to 
find a way to develop coal resources in an environmentally safe manner 
in the United States. Subsidy programs are historically programs like 
the dairy program in Wisconsin or the dairy program in Minnesota. This 
is not a subsidy program. This is a research investment program.
  Let me tell Members why we should oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. First, what is at stake here are American 
jobs. In my home State of Illinois, about 10 years ago there were 
20,000 men and women engaged in coal mining. It is a tough job, a dirty 
job, and a dangerous job, but it pays pretty well and the folks who 
went to work each day struggled and toiled to make a living, raise 
their families in communities all across Illinois, 20,000 of them. 
Today that number is down to around 5,000 because of new environmental 
standards nationwide, standards which I accept. We need cleaner air. 
America wants it. We must produce it. But we also ought to keep in mind 
that as we go through this transition and lose these jobs, we need to 
invest more in research to find ways to use the coal reserves already 
in America.
  At this point what we are calling for is more fossil fuel energy 
research as my colleague from Ohio has asked for to reduce America's 
dependence on imported oil and gas.
  Mr. Chairman, we remember not too long ago waiting in lines at gas 
stations, waiting to determine whether the OPEC cartel would say, ``OK, 
America, it's OK to be in business another year.'' Does America want to 
return to those days? I think not.
  In conclusion, we do not need to return to the days of energy 
dependence, to put our head in the sand, to ignore research which could 
produce energy sources right here in America. Energy dependence on 
foreign sources can lead us into all sorts of involvement, some say 
even the Persian Gulf war was created because of our energy dependence. 
We do not need that. If we are going to put research on a dubious 
questionable space station, if we are going to put research into Star 
Wars, for goodness sakes, should not we put research into energy 
sources to put Americans back to work?
  The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is a vote 
for energy dependence on foreign oil and gas and it is a vote to 
eliminate jobs in the United States. Please vote ``no'' on the Klug 
amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has the right 
to close debate.
  Mr. KLUG. Let me take a couple of more minutes if I could, Mr. 
Chairman, to simply make a couple of final points before the other side 
has an opportunity to do this.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies, who 
obviously has the ability to shape dairy policy differently if he 
disagrees with me. What we are talking about here, however, let me make 
this point one more time, we have subsidized, and I think that is the 
correct term, coal liquefication research since the 1940's. If it has 
not paid off in 50 years, how much more time will it take?
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we are in the never-ending box that we 
always debate here about science research programs. It is never too 
early to kill it because we do not know the potential, and it is always 
too late to kill it because it may still pay off at some point in the 
future. I suggest after five decades of research and millions of 
dollars of Federal money, if it has not paid off to this point, it will 
never pay off in the future.
  Again, the thrust of my amendment had I offered both of them together 
was to, first, cut some of the money devoted to coal research, save 
some of the money; and, second, shift some of the money to conservation 
research projects which is another way to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil by reducing our need for energy use and, instead, shift to 
energy conservation. That is why I think in this case we get strong 
support from taxpayer groups like the Citizens Against Government Waste 
and the National Taxpayers Union because from an economic perspective, 
this program is tough to justify. From an environmental perspective, 
from folks like the Friends of the Earth or the Citizens Against 
Government Waste Research Project or the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the sense is there is a better priority by spending money and 
shifting money into new energy technology, and, into technologies which 
will help us reach the goals of both global warming and also reach the 
goals that are stated in the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I think from both an environmental perspective 
and from a taxpayer perspective, it makes sense to, first, make this 
cut; then, second, if we are successful in a few minutes, talk about 
shifting some of the money to another research project.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to our Members that we have increased 
the conservation budget $135 million over last year. So that we have 
recognized, as the gentleman points out, the importance of conservation 
with a very substantial increase already in the bill.
  Mr. KLUG. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, my point simply being I would still like to see even 
more money shifted into that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug 
amendment to cut coal research and development funding. It reminds me 
of the old Hurt America First fuels approach. More than half of all the 
electricity in this country each day comes from coal. Coal makes up 
about 90 percent of our Nation's domestic fossil fuel resource. In 
North Dakota, lignite coal provides electricity for more than 2 million 
homes throughout the Upper Midwest and at present rates of production 
we can do this for the next 1,000 years, our resource is so plentiful. 
There is no doubt going to come a day when we will have alternative 
fuels. We will have solar, wind, renewables we have not even thought 
of. But that day is far away. Right now the choice is coal, or more 
dependence on foreign oil sources.
  Mr. Chairman, a stand for domestic energy is a stand for coal. In 
that light it only makes sense to try and improve this resource 
further; cleaner burning, more efficient. It is not as though coal has 
not taken its hit in terms of trying to get this budget under control, 
the national budget under control. This year the committee 
recommendation was a full $12 million below funding for fiscal year 
1994 which means it has been cut enough.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Klug amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should be 
doing research into the use of coal, but the question is at what level 
should this research support be at. That is where the basic question 
comes in. The OMB and President Clinton have recommended that we cut it 
back by $27 million more and this is the level at which I believe the 
private sector can begin to contribute more towards these R&D kinds of 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, these are difficult times. The President is putting 
forward significant and substantial deficit reduction efforts in my 
estimation, but we have to support him in those efforts. This was one 
of his strong recommendations and I believe we should follow it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, final points. I want to make it very clear to my 
colleagues as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] said before, 
this is not a new fight. In fact, the Walker-Brown-Penny amendment to 
last year's appropriations bill passed 276 to 144 and that amendment 
cut $49 million from coal-related spending. This amendment only cuts 
$27 million.
  Let me also point out that even that $40 million cut was eventually 
added back in in the conference committee with the Senate. For those 
Members who voted for the Penny-Kasich amendment, it rescinded funds 
for fossil energy research and development to 25 percent of its 
baseline level and this amendment before us is much tamer than that.
  Let me also point out finally, the President requested $976 million 
in energy conservation. The committee actually delivered $824 million, 
which is $152 million in conservation levels below what the White House 
itself requested.

                              {time}  1440

  So one more time from the perspective of those of us in this Chamber 
who want to save money, I believe this amendment makes sense, which is 
why it has the endorsement of the National Taxpayers Union and the 
Citizens Against Government Waste, and again, for those of you in this 
Chamber who are motivated by environmental reasons, that is why we find 
a number of colleagues including Friends of the Earth and the National 
Resources Defense Council trying to make the case that this is 
technology we have funded for 50 years. It has not paid dividends, and 
increasingly we need to shift money away from coal research into other 
kinds of projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would affect oil and gas programs which 
have been receiving increased emphasis in the research program.
  Techniques to recover significant quantities of oil traditionally 
left in the ground as unrecoverable will be delayed or abandoned.
  Promising work on advanced gas turbines and fuel cells, both of which 
are clean and efficient technologies, will be delayed.
  The committee has recommended modest increases in this area, but 
still below the budget request.
  I point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug], we have made progress in the field of coal research. A barrel of 
oil from coal which was $95 a few years ago is now down to $35 as a 
result of the research. It is very hopeful and expected that in the 
near future if the research programs are allowed to continue the cost 
will be reduced even further, perhaps to $25 a barrel.
  I oppose the amendment, and I urge the committee to defeat it.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to vote 
against the amendment offered by my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug]. The Klug amendment would cut $27 million from the coal research 
and development budget, a cut that would do great harm to our country's 
most abundant energy resource.
  One of the byproducts of the 1990 Clean Air Act is to try and find 
ways and incentives to burn high-sulfur coal using clean, 
environmentally-safe methods. This is an issue close to the heart of my 
congressional district, where several coal mines--and thousands of 
miners--have lost their jobs since 1990. If Congress continues to cut 
funding for coal research and development, we will only see these 
losses continue at a faster pace.
  Pick up a newspaper almost daily in my district and you can read 
about another mine closing, another hundred families shifting from 
private employment to public support. Without ways to use these 
abundant coal resources, without this research, we will continue to 
import more foreign oil, relying more and more on overseas imports to 
sustain our Nation's energy base, and more hard-working Americans will 
be unemployed.
  This amendment makes an unjustified cut in a program that is 
shouldering more than its share of the deficit reduction burden. The 
committee, in this bill, is recommending an overall figure for fossil 
energy research that is less than what Congress approved last year. In 
addition, the committee is recommending for coal research and 
development a figure that is $11 billion less than what Congress 
approved last year. The coal program cannot sustain these cuts and keep 
this vital industry alive. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Klug amendment.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. In recent years we have seen 
the budget for coal research and development decrease as offsetting 
increases appeared in energy conservation. I applaud our new emphasis 
on energy efficiency but I want to add a cautionary note. The 
administration's request for the coal R&D programs reflects changing 
priorities but does not provide enough funding to complete ongoing 
programs.
  As an example, the department has been funding a project to develop 
and construct a 1.6 megawatt pressurized fluidized bed facility. The 
department did not include funding for completion of the facility nor 
did it include operating funds needed to obtain testing results from 
the facility. The department's lack of foresight to bring this project 
to a logical conclusion is disturbing in terms of protecting our prior 
year investments and bringing new technologies forward to utilize our 
abundant coal resources. These technologies are also vital for our 
environmental future as the developing nations of the world continue to 
utilize their vast coal resources. By completing the development of 
more efficient and environmentally friendly coal technologies, we can 
provide technological leadership.
  In restoring $28 million to the budget request, the committee allows 
current programs to continue. Even with the additional $28 million, the 
coal budget is reduced by $12 million from last years funding levels.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Klug amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill and 
I commend the gentleman from Illinois and the committee for their 
efforts.
  I am pleased with the substance of the bill as it pertains to 
programs in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. I am pleased that it is relatively free of the kind of 
legislative language that should be left to the proper authorizing 
committees--but that nevertheless appears all too often in 
appropriations bills. And I am pleased that the committee has continued 
to be one that keeps inappropriate academic earmarks to a minimum.

  With respect to the substance of the bill, I am pleased that the 
committee has produced a bill consistent with the administration's 
requests for energy R&D and consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 
1992. Unfortunately, in this tight budget environment the committee's 
recommendation provides only half the increase in energy conservation 
R&D requested by the President. Still, the recommended funding 
represents a substantial increase over last year's level. R&D 
investments are critical to raising the Nation's productivity and 
standard of living, yet they all too often are singled out for 
reduction or elimination by zealous deficit cutters who overlook their 
longer term payoffs in order to achieve short-term budget savings.
  The Interior appropriations bill is not entirely free of pork, but 
staff of the Science Committee has identified less than $10 million in 
academic earmarks, and Mr. Yates is to be recommended for his efforts 
to keep academic earmarking under control.
  All in all, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and I urge all Members 
to support it.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug 
amendment.
  Here is the headline in one of my newspapers this morning ``Old Ben 
No. 25 To close--200 Jobs Lost by August.''
  Those are families in my district who have about 60 days to determine 
what they're going to do next--and perhaps they will have no choice but 
to leave a profession which has been in their families for generations.
  The Clean Air Act has taken hope from these families.
  What hope they have left is largely invested in the promise of 
research--research into promising technologies which will enable us to 
use these coal resources and provide jobs for our people.
  The Interior appropriations committee has done difficult work in 
parceling out scarce resources.
  We are already operating under very austere conditions and cannot 
afford additional reductions in this account.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.

            Old Ben No. 25 To Close--200 Jobs Lost by August

                           (By Nick Mariano)

       Zeigler Coal Co. will stop mining coal at Old Ben No. 25 
     near West Frankfort in two months, the firm announced 
     Tuesday.
       Company officials told the mine's 200 employees about the 
     decision on Friday, when the workers received 60 days' notice 
     of the impending layoffs.
       Company sopkesman Vic Svec said the closing is a result of 
     the 1990 Clean Air Act, which sets limits on sulfur dioxide 
     emissions.
       ``We will cease mining operations in mid-August. This is a 
     direct result of the Clean Air Act,'' he said.
       The mine will remain open to recover equipment and to 
     remove stockpiles of coal. Reclamation work also will 
     continue, Svec said.
       He said the contrast with the mine's only customer, Georgia 
     Power, expires on June 30 and will not be renewed.
       The contract was in effect from the mid-1970s until 1993, 
     and then was extended for one year. The mine produced 1.6 
     million tons of coal in 1993.
       United Mine Workers Local 2250 President Kenneth Craig said 
     the announcement was not a surprise. The closing has been 
     rumored since the UMW strike ended in December.
       He, too, blamed federal regulations.
       ``The Clean Air Act is the culprit behind the closing. 
     Companies buying western coal will make Illinois suffer and 
     Illinois will continue to suffer until politicians put 
     scrubbers on power plants'' he said.
       Southern Illinois coal is high in sulfur, while that mined 
     in the western United State contains less of the pollutant.
       The union represents 160 of the employees at the mine. The 
     remaining 40 employees hold management positions.
       West Frankfort Mayor John Simmons said losing the nine will 
     not only damage the income base in the city, but also 
     eliminate revenue that the city receives from the mining 
     company for water.
       That money, he said, is used to maintain city property at 
     the West Frankfort City Lake. Work will continue at the lake 
     as it has been done, on an as-needed basis, he said.
       The announcement did not surprise him either.
       ``The mining industry, has been dying for several years,'' 
     he said.
       According to Svec, unsuccessful attempts were made by 
     Zeigler Coal Co., the mine's parent company, to find other 
     customers for the high-sulfur coal.
       It is unlikely, however, that the mine would reopen even if 
     a customer were found after the mine closes.
       ``Conditions at the mine are probably not practical to 
     reopen it,'' he said, citing problems with water leaking into 
     the mine.
       Repairs at the mine were made after a spring storm this 
     year that ripped the roof off a washhouse at the mine and 
     damaged about 20 mining vehicles.
       The mine has coal reserves that would last another decade, 
     Svoc estimated.
       The last layoffs at No. 25 were in 1990 and involved 76 
     workers. At that time, there were 330 employees.
       Two Zeigler Coal-owned mines will continue to operate in 
     Franklin County, No. 24 near Benton and No. 26 near Sesser.
       Svec said those mines are not in jeopardy now, but he added 
     that it will be a challenge for all of Southern Illinois to 
     keep mines open past the year 2000, when the second phase of 
     the Clean Air Act goes into effect. That phase will require 
     power companies to install scrubbers, devices used to remove 
     sulfur dioxide.
       ``By the time Phase Two comes around, many of the mines 
     will have been forced to exit the market,'' he said.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 242, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 271]

                               AYES--182

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Farr
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Harman
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Morella
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Olver
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Richardson
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Talent
     Thurman
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     Meek
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blackwell
     Clay
     Dellums
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gunderson
     Hilliard
     Johnson (CT)
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Quinn
     Thornton
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1504

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Gunderson for, with Mrs. Lloyd against.

  Mr. GLICKMAN and Mr. FIELDS of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. FURSE, Messrs. HERGER, KENNEDY, and OLVER, Mrs. 
SCHROEDER, and Mr. HAMBURG changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those contract 
     where such expenditures are a matter of public record and 
     available for public inspection, except where otherwise 
     provided under existing law, or under existing Executive 
     order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall 
     be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural 
     gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within 
     the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois: 
     Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhabit or 
     otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to 
     minerals owned by private individuals.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the Committees on Appropriations and are 
     approved by such Committees.
       Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in section 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 308. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
     may offer for sale salvageable timber in the Pacific 
     Northwest in fiscal year 1995: Provided, That for public 
     lands known to contain the Northern spotted owl, such 
     salvage sales may be offered as long as the offering of 
     such sale will not render the area unsuitable as habitat 
     for the Northern spotted owl: Provided further, That 
     timber salvage activity in spotted owl habitat is to be 
     done in full compliance with all existing environmental 
     and forest management laws.
       Sec. 309. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 1994.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any increase in government housing rental 
     rates in excess of 10 percentum more than the rental rates 
     which were in effect on September 1, 1994, for such housing.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.

  Mr. YATES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 84, line 23, 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.


                    amendment offered by mr. rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall: Page 84, after line 23, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 312. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Fossil 
     Energy Research and Development'', and increasing the amount 
     made available for ``Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund'', by 
     $10,000,000.

  Mr. RAHALL (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 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall] to agree to a time limitation of 10 minutes, 5 minutes to be 
controlled by the gentleman from West Virginia and 5 minutes to be 
controlled by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Illinois making a unanimous-
consent request that the time for debate on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia be limited to 10 minutes, 5 minutes to 
be controlled by the gentleman from West Virginia and 5 minutes to be 
controlled by himself?
  Mr. YATES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
withdraw my reservation of objection if we can have half the time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will be very 
glad to give the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 2\1/2\ minutes of my 
time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time for debate on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] is limited to 
10 minutes, 5 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], 2\1/2\ minutes to be controlled by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and 2\1/2\ minutes to be controlled by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend Chairman Yates and 
ranking Republican Member Ralph Regula for the excellent work they have 
done on this bill in light of the extremely tight budget allocation 
they had to work under.
  But with that said, I am compelled to offer this amendment.
  This amendment would strike $10 million from the $446,544,000 
proposed for fossil energy research and development.
  This $10 million would then be added to the abandoned mine 
reclamation fund appropriation.
  Let me be clear. I offer this amendment with no malice toward fossil 
energy research.
  Indeed, I have always been very supportive of this research.
  And if I had my preference, I would simply increase the Abandoned 
Mine Reclamation Program funding without this offsetting reduction.
  This, however, is not a viable way to proceed under the existing 
budgetary situation.
  And so it is appropriate, in my view, to slightly reduce the fossil 
energy research account in order to provide an increased appropriation 
for a program aimed at mitigating the health, safety, and environmental 
consequences of past fossil energy production, in this case, from coal 
mining.
  This is what is financed under the abandoned mine reclamation fund.
  Under the programs supported by this fund, jobs are created and 
immediate environmental benefits are received through the restoration 
of lands left unreclaimed by past coal mining practices.
  We are talking about the letting of contracts and dirt being moved in 
a similar fashion to the highway program.
  It is important to note that financing for this program is provided 
for through a fee assessed on every ton of coal mined in the United 
States.
  These fees, paid by the coal industry, are deposited into the 
abandoned mine reclamation fund.
  In effect, this fund serves as the coal industry's version of the 
Superfund.
  However, enactment of the administration's request for this program 
would result in an unappropriated balance of over $1 billion in the 
abandoned mine reclamation fund.
  That is $1 billion.
  Now, I would suggest that the Congress did not impose these fees on 
the coal industry simply to allow these money to sit idle in a 
Government trust fund.
  Money sitting idle, I might add, while people's homes and livelihoods 
are being threatened by burning refuse piles, landslides, and things of 
this nature.
  While the Appropriations Committee increased the administration 
request slightly--by $5.7 million--the overall recommended amount of 
$172.4 million is still far below the $190 million in current fiscal 
year funding.
  What I am proposing is a tradeoff. Fossil energy research should, in 
the future, lead to technologies that allow for the use of fossil fuels 
in a more environmentally sound fashion.
  However, I do not think we can turn our backs on the very real and 
pressing problems that people face today, on the ground, in many 
regions of the country as a result of past coal mining practices.
  And so I would transfer this $10 million to the abandoned mine 
reclamation fund, and it is my intent that this $10 million be made 
available for the Rural Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, or RAMP.
  Amounts appropriated from the fund are utilized through three 
delivery mechanisms: State grants, the Federal program and under RAMP.
  While I believe the State grants program should also be increased, 
the RAMP Program would be wiped out under this bill. It is only 
proposed to receive $2.5 million rather than the $13 or so million 
normally appropriated for it.
  So I say to Chairman Yates and to Mr. Regula that it is my hope you 
will accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the fossil energy R&D budget was already cut 
substantially at the committee level.
  Further cuts will have two adverse consequences. First, the cuts will 
mean a decrease in natural gas research funding, the fuel the 
administration is pushing as the cornerstone of our Nation's energy 
policy, for good reason. Natural gas is clean and abundant.
  The second adverse consequence of the cuts will be to threaten the 
research and development necessary to keep stripper wells open and 
operating. There are 1 million such marginal wells operating today and 
they produce nearly 20 percent of our domestic oil. Without additional 
research and technology to make them more efficient and profitable, the 
United States is likely to see oil and gas production eroded even 
further. This year the United States already has set a dubious record 
of importing 50 percent of its energy. To protect our national security 
as well as our economy, we need to increase, not decrease, the funds 
spent on research and development.
  In fact, recent Department of Energy estimates suggest that as much 
as 60 to 70 percent of the known remaining domestic oil resources could 
be abandoned in less than 15 years unless effective technologies are 
developed and utilized.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rahall 
amendment which would reinstate funds to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
Program, better known as RAMP.
  Mr. Chairman, coal operators have paid over $489 million into a trust 
fund which is used to reclaim lands left by past coal mine activities.
  This is money that our coal communities have paid but cannot use to 
restore their land and protect their property because it is sitting by 
idle in a Government trust fund.
  It is wrong to deny communities protection from these dangerous 
reclamation problems, and RAMP funds provide this protection.
  We must take action now so that we can provide immediate help to 
people whose homes and lives are in danger, and restore funds to a 
program which addresses reclamation problems before they turn into 
emergencies.
  In Kentucky, over 300,000 acres of abandoned mined lands have been 
reclaimed and another 102,000 acres of abandoned surface mined lands 
still need major reclamation work.
  I see no justifiable reason for us to ignore the severe subsidence 
problems, property damage, and flooding that result when restoration of 
abandoned mine lands does not occur.
  These problems can lead to serious slides or other emergencies which 
threaten the homes and lives of the families in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does RAMP funds provide assistance to families 
who have been affected by mine-related problems, but it also works to 
improve water quality in lakes and streams. It also improves the visual 
quality of lands that have been exposed due to the effects of strip 
mining.
  Mr. Chairman, the list of program benefits goes on and on. This is a 
valuable program to eastern and southern Kentucky and other communities 
throughout this country.
  I have seen first hand the excellent reclamation work that is 
accomplished through this program. The W.H. Bowlin Coal Co. in Saxton, 
KY, recently was awarded the national Surface Mining Reclamation Award 
for excellence in land reclamation. It is quality reclamation efforts 
such as these which benefit from RAMP funds.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to provide immediate help to 
those who need it and to insure the health and safety of those whose 
livelihood is threatened by mine related emergencies.
  I urge my colleagues support the coal communities who need these 
funds to restore their land and protect their homes and property.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude by reinforcing what I and the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] have stated. We have gone to the mat on a number 
of occasions in Congress to authorize and to extend the life of the 
abandoned mine reclamation fund. We set up this fund in 1977 when 
Congress wisely enacted the Surface Mining Reclamation Act, and it has 
been on the books since. The industry has fought us in our efforts to 
extend this program. We have invoked their wrath a number of times, yet 
they have abided by the law as Congress has passed this legislation.
  I would say that it is only fair to the American people, it is only 
fair to the Appalachian States, and only fair to the coal industry, now 
that they are abiding by the law, paying this tax into the fund, that 
this money not sit idle here in Washington, but be spent for the 
purposes for which the original legislation was enacted. The receipts 
into this fund have been increasing over the years, since 1987, yet the 
actual appropriations for the AML have been declining. This is a small 
step in trying to restore that balance in fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's amendment. I 
wish we could comply with his request. I recognize the importance of 
the RAMP Program, except we are prisoners of caps and of budget 
agreements. And in order for this program to be approved, it will be 
necessary to find an appropriate offset.
  The gentleman suggests we take it out of coal research, out of 
research for fossil fuels. This would reduce fossil energy research by 
$10 million, and we have already reduced that program by $23 million 
below the President's request. It would have the effect of cutting oil 
and gas programs already reduced below the President's budget, and 
reducing coal programs that have already been reduced for the past 3 
years.
  I wish we could do it, Mr. Chairman, but the offsets that are 
suggested cannot be used for that purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4602, the fiscal year 1994 Interior appropriations bill, and in 
opposition to any damaging amendments which would eliminate or reduce 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] or the National 
Endowment for the Humanities [NEH].
  Efforts to eliminate or slash funding for the NEA and NEH seems to 
have become an annual occurance in the U.S. Congress. Fortunately, many 
Members recognize the valuable contribution that these organizations 
make to our country and, as a result, efforts to terminate or cripple 
the NEA and NEH are usually unsuccessful. The reason that so many 
Members support funding for the NEA and NEH, including myself, is 
simple--the arts are important to the health and prosperity of all of 
American society and should be supported by the U.S. Congress. When we 
decide to appropriate a teeny speck of our Federal budget to the NEA 
and NEH, only 65 cents per American in 1993, these organizations are 
then able to expand these dollars and turn them into artistic 
appreciation and opportunities for millions of Americans.
  To determine whether the NEA and NEH have any positive impact on our 
constituents, only one needs to take a look around one's congressional 
district. In the Seventh Congressional District of Illinois, which I 
represent, students from Bellwood, Berkely, Maywood, Oak Park, River 
Forest, Westchester, Hillside, and Elmwood Park attended special 
concerts by the world-renown Chicago Symphony. The Community Television 
Network in Chicago received a grant to support the neighborhood video 
program which is targeted at young people who have dropped out of 
public schools and have little exposure to the arts. I could go on and 
on and I am certain that many of my colleagues also have many examples 
of activities sponsored by the NEA and NEH in their districts.
  Mr. Chairman, the arts are good for America and for that simple 
reason, we should continue to support Federal funding for the arts and 
oppose any efforts to cut NEA and NEH funding.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I support the Interior 
appropriations bill before us today. It provides $13.2 billion to help 
preserve our important natural and biological resources. This bill 
funds the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge fund, and 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Americans are visiting our national 
parks and appreciating the natural beauty of our country in record 
numbers. Money for the Interior has been reduced by $195 million less 
than last year, a reasonable reduction considering our national 
deficit. This cut will not hurt the ability of Americans to enjoy the 
natural assets of our country.
  This bill comes close to home for my constituents because it provides 
the money needed to operate the Weir Farm National Historic site. 
Connecticut is proud of having been the summer home of the American 
impressionist painter J. Alden Weir. Volunteers and private donors have 
worked to make this park a place of beauty and historical meaning. I 
have introduced a bill to expand the boundaries of the Weir Farm 
Historic Site. Every member of the Connecticut delegation has 
cosponsored this bill.
  This bill also funds the National Endowment for the Arts. In no way 
do I support the offensive performances that have been funded by the 
NEA. At the same time, I realize that the vast majority of projects 
funded by the NEA are respected and worthwhile. I feel it is best to 
handle the NEA controversy by cutting the program, but not completely 
eliminating it. I do not understand why these few offensive projects 
get chosen for funding, and we in Congress need to make sure that this 
problem stops.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to a 
little-known provision in the Interior appropriations bill that will 
effectively close an important research center in my district. With 
this language the Bureau of Mines Research Centers in Tuscaloosa, AL 
and Rolla, MO, the latter being in my district, will be closed over a 
2-year period. This will happen under the guise of reorganization by 
the Bureau of Mines. In fact, this proposal is politically motivated 
and not based on scientific analysis. Furthermore, this proposal was 
done with hardly any input from rank-and-file employees of the Bureau 
of Mines. The proposed reorganization ignores the primary customer of 
the Bureau of Mines--the mining community. There is certainly no secret 
that this plan was put together with political considerations 
overriding any logical criteria.
  Closing the Rolla facility would be a serious mistake. It would not 
only irreparably harm this rural community, but it would significantly 
undercut the Bureau's own efforts in environmental research. In fact, 
the Rolla Research Center devotes 75 percent of its budget to waste 
remediation and reuse investigations. It is also my understanding that 
about half of the Bureau's expertise in environmental remediation and 
pollution control and prevention--as related to mining and 
metallurgical problems--takes place at the Rolla Center. The Center has 
developed unique capabilities in the treatment of hazardous wastes 
through the use of innovative and selective systems to clean up 
contaminated sites resulting in clean soils plus valuable and usable 
byproducts.
  This administration has emphasized the importance of cleaning up our 
past environmental mistakes with regard to the mining community and 
other areas. Missouri, as well as other States across the country have 
serious problems that must be addressed. The thrust of the Center's 
research is complimentary to the very ideals espoused by this 
administration. In my mind, the Bureau would better serve itself and 
the country by starting its reorganization efforts from the top down. 
The Bureau should first make cuts with the bureaucracy here in 
Washington, rather than with the people and the facilities in the field 
where the work and research is actually done.
  Mr. Chairman, Missouri produces about 94 percent of the Nation's 
primary lead. The Roll Center is located approximately 60 miles from 
what's known as the New Lead Belt. The State is eighth in nonfuel 
minerals, with a mineral value of $1.5 billion. It is home to eight 
lead, silver, zinc, copper, cobalt, and iron mines with three smelters 
and six mills. All told, the industry employs about 12,000 people from 
all over the State, but undoubtedly the majority of them make their 
home and their livelihood in my district.
  We in Missouri have benefited from our God-given natural resources. 
Lead which once contributed invaluably to the civilized world in the 
form of plumbing, shelter, and high-octane fuels, we now know to be a 
mixed blessing. It is still invaluable to us for the lead-acid battery 
found in every car and for extensive use in radiation shielding. Yet, 
it is a heavy-metal toxin. Research into its safe extraction and use is 
as necessary as research into stabilization and clean up of old waste 
piles and impoundments--something that we have plenty of in Missouri. 
The Rolla Center is involved in this technology.
  The Center has worked closely over the years in coordination with the 
industry concerning some of the technologies I mentioned earlier. The 
industry in Missouri is strongly united in keeping the Center located 
in Rolla. Furthermore, the Center has worked closely with the USGS, the 
University of Missouri-Rolla--formerly the Missourian School of Mines--
and State officials as well. I would challenge anyone to prove to me 
that the Rolla Research Center is not a good bang for the Federal buck. 
Furthermore, the Rolla Chamber of Commerce estimates that the economic 
value of the Center to this rural community is approximately $28 
million--so for a little over $4 million of Federal funds, the Center 
is returning $28 million to the community in economic activity.
  Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, I want to also point out that the work 
being done by the Research Center is unprecedented. While it gets 3 
percent of the Bureau's research budget, it accounts for 30 percent of 
in-house R&D awards and 19 percent of the Bureau Center's awards 
overall. It would appear to me that the Center is doing something 
right. I seriously question the rationale and the criteria used by the 
Bureau of Mines to come to the conclusions it has reached regarding the 
Rolla Research Center.
  In my mind, a prudent and complete examination of this plan will find 
that the Rolla Research Center is a good investment to guide us in 
future environmental technologies for the mining community.
  Mr. de LUGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with general jurisdiction 
over matters concerning the U.S. insular areas--including the smaller 
areas which receive special assistance through the Interior Department, 
I want to commend my friend and distinguished colleague, the chairman 
of the Interior Subcommittee, Sidney Yates, for his masterful work in 
putting this bill together.
  In particular, I want to express my appreciation for his cooperation 
and sensitivity on several insular matters, especially a few which 
involved both authorizing and appropriating committee responsibilities.
  One of these matters is the epidemic of violent crime which in the 
territory that I am privileged to represent, the Virgin Islands. It has 
become so serious that it justifies special assistance.
  Much of it is due to the trafficking of illicit drugs from the 
outside through and in our islands.
  The brutality of some crimes has imperiled our tourism-based economy. 
But, more importantly, violent crime rates which are far above the 
national average have substantially worsened the quality of life of 
every Virgin Islander.
  Our Governor, Alexander Farrelly, was realistic enough to recognize 
that Federal resources are needed to help protect what in other ways is 
America's tropical paradise both for its people and our million 
visitors from the States each year.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to see that H.R. 4602 
includes funding for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands to partially offset the costs that have been incurred by these 
two insular areas since implementation of the Compact of Free 
Association With the Micronesian States.
  The Compact permits Micronesians open entry into the United States 
and insular areas. The law which actually defines the relationship, 
Public Law 99-239, included an amendment, which I and others authored, 
which authorized appropriations to cover the cost imposed on the 
educational and other social systems of insular governments by Compact 
migration.
  The executive branch is supposed to calculate these costs and 
recommend appropriate reimbursement; but the Interior Department's 
territories office, OTIA, has consistently tried to avoid the 
responsibility to pay for the costs by saying that it didn't know what 
the cost were.
  It also has tried to pass off the responsibility to calculate the 
costs to the insular governments involved--and then disputed insular 
estimates.
  The gentleman from Illinois has moved to end this ruse by rejecting 
funds for more studying of the matter--and proposing the funding that 
the law actually intends: To reimburse the insular governments. I also 
want to note the role of the Delegate from Guam, Robert A. Underwood, 
in getting us to this point.
  The bill also includes another reimbursement intended by Congress in 
establishing free association with the Marshall Islands through another 
provision that some of us helped write.
  The Compact signed by a representative of President Reagan would have 
provided Federal tax and trade law exemptions to encourage economic 
activity in the Marshalls and Micronesia--which had been little 
developed by OTIA economically but which would need to become more 
self-reliant under self-government.
  The incentive proposals were irresponsible, however. Outlandish 
loopholes that would have created tax havens were proposed. They would 
have provided greater encouragement for investment in essentially 
independent sovereign States than are provided in U.S. areas.
  This House changed the provisions, still providing a very attractive 
investment climate but not violating defensible policy.
  At the same time, we recognized that the peoples of the islands had 
been misled in approving the compact on the economic benefits that it 
would bring. We also recognized the need to provide assistance for 
economic development.
  We added a number of Federal programs and capital to facilitate U.S. 
economic activity in the islands. Some of the capital was guaranteed; 
other amounts were authorized.
  The bill includes a small portion of the funds we authorized to make 
up for what had not been done otherwise.
  There is one other matter that Chairman Yates and our committee have 
worked on which involves the freely associated states that I should 
mention. It concerns the safety of the atoll of Rongelap, contaminated 
by a U.S. nuclear weapons test 40 years ago, and the health and welfare 
of the atoll's people.
  In acting on the compact with the Marshalls, our committee insisted 
on a provision to commit our Nation to answer the people of Rongelap's 
questions about the seriousness of the contamination and take the 
measures necessary to overcome any problems.
  The distinguished chairman of the full committee, George Miller, and 
I have fought to get these commitments implemented.
  We now know that there has been good reason for the concerns of the 
people of Rongelap--in spite of the assurances of safety provided by 
Federal bureaucrats. Way out of proportion cancer rates and heart-
rendering birth defects prove that there is a problem.
  The bill includes a portion of the further funding that will be 
needed to address it. We expect that some of the additional funds will 
come through the Defense Department appropriations bill due to the 
origin of the problem and also due to the understanding of our 
distinguished colleague who chairs that subcommittee, John Murtha. 
Other funds will have to be provided later.
  Since all that needs to be done is still not clear, the funds--for 
cleanup and resettlement of Rongelap as well as other needs of the 
community--would be spent with the approval of OTIA. Given its record 
of relative insensitivity to problem, however, we will also expect to 
be given adequate notice of the spending plans. This will provide us 
with an opportunity to act if bureaucrats against try to push the 
people back to the island before the problems are sufficiently dealt 
with.
  The people of Rongelap, who have been away from their homes for years 
now, can be more easily pressured to prematurely return because of the 
desperate conditions under which many are living in exile. We will 
expect their essential human needs to be met while they have to be away 
from Rongelap so that they can make truly free decisions about their 
future and they can live decently while a mess that our Government 
created is clean-up.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members may know the administration expects to enter 
into free association with the last remaining part of the Pacific 
Islands Territory that we have been responsible for under an agreement 
with the United Nations--Palau--on October 1. This relationship is 
authorized to be implemented under a law and terms which I am very 
proud to have sponsored.
  The bill includes the appropriate funding for this compact. It also, 
however, includes funds which I and others recommended, to fulfill 
responsibilities for developing these islands into self-reliance.
  In noting this, I want to also note that we will have to provide 
further funds for Palau if the compact cannot actually be implemented 
as agreed October 1.
  I also want to explain why the bill includes more special assistance 
than almost anyone had anticipated for the development of the one part 
of the Pacific Islands Territory that has become a part of the United 
States political family: The Northern Mariana Islands.
  Current law requires $27,720,000 in such assistance annually until 
this requirement is changed; but the law also contemplated a change 
after Congress considered recommendations. OTIA recommended a $120 
million commitment of assistance from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 
2000.
  We objected to a new commitment of special assistance without 
conditions related to the commonwealth's tax and alien labor policies. 
The tax policies fail to meet the Commonwealth's responsibilities for 
self-reliance.
  The alien labor policies have let in massive numbers of nonresident 
workers, imposing costs on public services and threatening the social 
fabric of the community. They have allowed too many nonresidents to be 
treated inhumanely. And they use low-paid, nonresidents and the 
Commonwealth's free-trade relationship with the United States to 
unfairly compete with the garment industry in the States and other 
insular areas.
  OTIA hindered agreement on a commitment with conditions last year, so 
the will of the House was to provide no funds rather than special 
assistance without conditions.
  In spite of this, OTIA recently recommended a scaled-down package of 
assistance--$27 million between fiscal years 1995 and 1996 without real 
conditions. This was amazing in light of the insistence of Chairman 
Miller and others that there be conditions.
  OTIA's proposal is, obviously, unacceptable and, thus, $27,720,000 
will continue to be provided.
  Mr. Chairman, in all of the Pacific issues I have mentioned, OTIA has 
performed disappointingly. The office, perhaps fortunately, also, 
though, has much less of a role than it once did.
  In fact, most of our frustrations with it relate to it interfering in 
areas outside of its real mandate in policies and programs which other 
agencies now handle directly with self-governing insular areas.
  Further, OTIA will lose one of its most important remaining missions 
when the Compact with Palau is implemented, scheduled, as I mentioned 
earlier, for October 1. While OTIA now oversees and subsidizes the 
Government of Palau, relations will then be conducted by a State 
Department Office and most assistance will then be provided on an 
automatic basis.
  OTIA once oversaw and subsidized the governments of all of the 
insular areas. But it now oversees none other than Palau and only 
subsidizes American Samoa with funds that involve any substantial work 
on its part. Most of its work is in providing the special assistance 
that I have mentioned.
  In spite of this, OTIA spends a substantial amount of funds in ways 
that relate to its former role as an overseer of insular governments 
and lead agency on matters concerning them. These expenditures 
especially involve intergovernmental liaison, travel, and the 
responsibilities of other agencies.
  At the same time, it doesn't attend to its real areas of 
responsibility well.
  In case there is still any question about this, I want to mention an 
issue that is not covered by this bill because it doesn't require 
funding--but is one of OTIA's few remaining major responsibilities: 
Disposing of Water Island in the Virgin Islands.
  The disposal was complicated by a deficient lease that the Department 
entered into in 1952. But legal complications arising from the lease 
really only involve a portion of the property and a settlement could 
have been worked out.
  We have done everything possible to help OTIA find its way, from 
hearings, to a law requiring a plan, to House passage of a process, to 
an agreement with the Senate chairman on the parameters of a disposal.
  I have given guidance on every policy question; but OTIA has tied 
itself in legal and political knots. And a year and a half after the 
end of the lease, the island still has not integrated into the local 
community, hundreds of people involved are in limbo, and some of the 
most precious property under the U.S.-flag cannot be put to its best 
uses.
  OTIA's performance and reduced role does not justify the level of 
funds that have been provided for it. So, Chairman Miller and I worked 
with Chairman Yates to reduce funding for OTIA's own expenses, while 
increasing funding as appropriate to meet needs in and Federal 
responsibilities regarding the insular areas themselves.
  The reduction in the bill is the least that we believe should be 
agreed to.
  In conclusion, I want to commend Chairman Yates and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Ralph Regula, for the continued support 
they have shown to the peoples of the U.S. offshore areas. I also want 
to note the work and cooperation of the staff, especially Kathy 
Johnson.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, before I move that the committee rise, I 
just want to express the gratitude of myself and the members of our 
committee for the superb job that they did in conducting the 
administration of this bill. It was very well done.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the committe do now rise and report the 
bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recommendation that 
the amendment be agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Wise) 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 directed him to report the bill back to the House with an 
amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to, and 
that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           motion to recommit offered by mr. myers of indiana

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Motion to recommit offered by Mr. Myers of Indiana: Mr. 
     Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4602, to 
     the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that 
     committee to report the same back to the House forthwith with 
     the following amendment:
       On Page 50, line 11, strike $62,131,000 and insert 
     $61,131,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will just take one minute to 
simply explain, this is a simple motion to recommit, striking $1 
million from the land acquisition account for the Forest Service for 
acquisition of some property in the district of the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], in the Cherokee National Forest, and 
specifically for the highlands of Roan. The local authorities say that 
it is going to take the land off the taxing base. The Forest Service 
has not adequately taken care of the land they do have.

                              {time}  1520

  It is a simple amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I have examined the amendment. I have 
discussed it with the gentleman from Indiana. We can accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. He has a 
good bill. With this, I will be able to vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wise). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was agreed to.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House, I 
report the bill, H.R. 4602, back to the House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment: On Page 50, line 11, strike $62,131,000 and 
     insert $61,131,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 338, 
nays 85, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 272]

                               YEAS--338

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

                                NAYS--85

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Grams
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hefley
     Herger
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonior
     Clay
     Dornan
     Gunderson
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Quinn
     Towns
     Washington
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1543

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Lloyd for, with Mr. Quinn against.

  Mr. HANCOCK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________