[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6920-H6925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1977, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 187 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 187
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with
section 302(f), 306, or 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered by title rather than by
paragraph. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. The amendments
printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered
as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against the amendment printed in section
3 of this resolution are waived. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. Points of order against
amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI
are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House
[[Page H 6921]]
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole are as follows:
Page 57, line 21, strike ``: Provided further'' and all
that follows through ``Act'' on page 58, line 2.
Page 72, line 19, insert ``, subject to passage by the
House of Representatives of a bill authorizing such
appropriation,'' after the dollar figure.
Page 73, line 4, insert ``, subject to passage by the House
of Representatives of a bill authorizing such
appropriation,'' after the dollar figure.
Page 75, line 24, strike ``equivalent to'' and insert ``not
to exceed''.
Sec. 3. The amendment against which all points of order are
waived is one offered by Representative Schaefer of Colorado
or Representative Tauzin of Louisiana as follows:
Page 57, line 9, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through ``Reserve'' on line 21.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, my
friend, Mr. Beilenson, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, in the immortal words of baseball great Yogi
Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.''
Less than 12 hours ago, the Rules Committee met to craft this second
fair and responsible rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1977,
the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
Having been a part of the discussions which led to this new and
improved rule, I can say quite honestly that House Resolution 187 more
than adequately addresses concerns which have been raised about certain
unauthorized provisions which have been included in the bill, namely
those sections dealing with funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts.
In response to these concerns, the rule provides for the automatic
adoption of an amendment which makes the availability of NEA
appropriations subject to passage of an authorization bill in the
House.
By including this language, we can ensure that these funds will not
be appropriated unless properly authorized, while also giving the full
House an opportunity to debate this important and controversial issue.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, this rule contains essentially the same
provisions as House Resolution 185, which we discussed on the floor of
the House late last night.
Specifically, this is another open rule. It provides for 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, after which
time the bill will be open to amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered by title, rather than by paragraph, and
each title shall be considered as read.
As in the previous resolution, this rule waives clause 2, related to
unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions, and clause 6 of
rule XXI (21), related to reappropriation in an appropriations bill,
against provisions of this bill.
Again, this is done as a precaution since the House, due to time
constraints, has not yet approved authorizing legislation for all of
the programs and activities contained in the bill.
The rule also waives provisions of the Budget Act against
consideration of the bill relating to new entitlement authority and to
matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Language to
correct these Budget Act violations is also included in the self-
executing set of amendments.
In addition, the rule waives points of order against the amendment
printed in the rule relating to the sale of oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, if offered by Representative Schaefer of Colorado or
Representative Tauzin of Louisiana.
Under the rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give
priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their
amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration,
and such amendments shall be considered as read.
As before, the rule waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI(21), relating to
nonemergency amendments offered to a bill which contains an emergency
designation. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
As I mentioned last evening, H.R. 1977 is a fiscally responsible bill
which responds to the American people's clear mandate to reduce the
size, scope, and cost of the Federal Government.
The bill is more than $1.5 billion below last year's level--a full 11
percent cut from the 1995 spending level--and is consistent with the
balanced budget resolution already adopted by the House.
My good friend from Ohio, the distinguished chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, has done yeoman work on this legislation,
and I congratulate him on working to reach a compromise which will
enable the House to debate, and then pass, this essential funding bill
in a timely manner.
Those on both sides of the NEA funding issue owe Chairman Regula a
great debt of gratitude for his strong leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, especially those who voted
against the rule yesterday, to realize that this is a wide open,
responsible, and reasonable rule. It will create the kind of healthy
deliberation which should be the hallmark of this legislative body, and
I urge its adoption without any further delay.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentlewoman. I
know that she stayed up until the wee hours this morning trying to work
out this compromise on the rule. I just want to reemphasize what she
said. This is still a totally open rule. Yes, we are self-executing
into the base text of the legislation simply the words that say
``subject to passage by the House of Representatives of a bill
authorizing such appropriation.''
But, having done that, and having done it right up front in the
beginning of the bill, the bill is still open to amendment at any point
so that every single Member, 435 Members of this House, will have the
opportunity to come to this floor and work their will in any way that
they see fit. We have stuck to our guns in keeping these rules open so
that Members on both sides of the aisle, regardless of political or
philosophical persuasion, will have their opportunity to legislate on
this floor.
I commend the gentlewoman for a great job on this rule. I urge every
Member, on both sides of the aisle, to unanimously pass this rule, and
let's get on with the people's business.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say the House needs to
move ahead with the appropriations process. We are fast approaching the
August district work period, and less than half of our 13 regular
appropriations bills have cleared the Committee on Rules. This
resolution will get us back on track. I believe it is an immensely fair
deal for both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption without further
delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 12, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 34 72
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 12 26
[[Page H 6922]]
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 47 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 12, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95)
H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
95). 168 (5/17/95)
H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
95). Interests Act. 95)
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
1996. 183 (6/13/95)
H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1817........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ:223-180 A: 245-
95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95)
H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
95). 1996. 191 (6/20/95)
H. Res. 170 (6/20/ O................... H.R. 1868........... For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
95). 1996. 175 (6/22/95)
H. Res. 171 (6/22/ O................... H.R. 1905........... Energy & Water Approps. A: voice vote (7/12/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 173 (6/27/ C................... H.J. Res. 79........ Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
95). Amendment. 152 (6/28/95)
H. Res. 176 (6/28/ MC.................. H.R. 1944........... Emer. Supp. Approps...... PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
95). 192 (6/29/95)
H. Res. 185 (7/11/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
95). 238 (7/12/95)
H. Res. 187 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 ...................
95). #2.
H. Res. 188 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1976........... Agriculture Approps. FY ...................
95). 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes of
debate, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule, and we urge Members to vote ``no''
on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
As the gentlewoman from Ohio has explained, House Resolution 187 is
identical to the rule for consideration of the Interior appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1996 that the House defeated last night, except
for one change related to the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts.
This new rule provides that the appropriation of $99 million
contained in the bill for the NEA would be contingent upon House
passage of an authorization bill for the NEA.
Although those of us who strongly support the NEA believe that the
organization should be given the same treatment that the bill gives
other agencies whose authorizations have expired--that is, we believe
that its funding should be fully protected by waiving the prohibition
against unauthorized appropriations, without being contingent upon
passage of another piece of legislation--we appreciate the fact that
the NEA funding will not be able to be struck on a point of order when
the House considers H.R. 1977.
Because we discussed the other provisions of the rule in detail last
night, I shall only briefly summarize them at this time:
House Resolution 187 is an open rule, as rules for Interior
appropriations bills have always been, to the best of our knowledge.
Members may offer any amendment that is otherwise eligible to be
offered under the standing rules of the House. The rule permits the
Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted
their amendments in the Congressional Record.
The rule waives several House rules for provisions in H.R. 1977, as
well as several sections of the Budget Act against consideration of the
bill. The rule also contains a self-executing amendment, and it waives
points of order against an amendment to be offered by Representative
Shaefer or Tauzin relating to the sale of oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
The waivers of clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting
unauthorized appropriations and legislation in an appropriations bill
are necessary because the bill contains funding for numerous programs
whose authorizations have
[[Page H 6923]]
expired, and because of legislative language contained in the bill.
Despite their past criticism of waiving rule XXI, it is clear that our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have found that it is
necessary to provide such waivers in order to move appropriations bills
through the House in a timely manner.
However, I want to point out that the senior Democratic member of the
Resources Committee, Mr. Miller of California, strongly objects to
waiving the prohibition on legislation in an appropriations bill for
provisions in H.R. 1977 that directly or indirectly amend laws under
the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee.
{time} 1040
He noted in a letter to the Committee on Rules that the Committee on
Resources has not considered the impact of changes that H.R. 1977 would
make on a number of major environmental laws. We hope that these
changes in laws will be fully explained and debated as the House
considers H.R. 1977 so that Members will be fully aware of the
consequences to our environmental laws that would result from approving
this bill.
The rule also waives three sections of the Budget Act against
consideration of the bill. Two of the waivers are needed to cover the
minor amount of spending required for salaries and expenses of the
National Capital Planning Commission. The third wavier covers the
change in budget scorekeeping related to the sale of oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
As a matter of principle, we are normally reluctant, all of us, to
waive the Budget Act. However, because none of the provisions which
require these waivers would have any real or serious or substantial
impact on our efforts to control spending, we do not consider the
waivers here to be significant violations of the Budget Act, and we
support them.
Beyond our concerns about the rule itself, many of us do have strong
objections to the bill that this rule makes in order, primarily because
of its deep cuts in funding for many important and useful programs,
programs that cost very little compared to the immense amount of value
that they add to the quality of the lives of tens of millions of
Americans.
We realize that the Subcommittee on Interior had an extremely
difficult task determining how to cut 12 percent of the funding for
programs under its jurisdiction, especially since many of these
programs have already been squeezed for funding in recent years. But
the subcommittee was in that position only because the Republican
majority has imposed budget priorities that in our opinion do not serve
the best interests of our Nation.
Those priorities are forcing us to cut next year's funding for the
relatively modest programs in this bill by $1\1/2\ billion, $1\1/2\
billion so that hundreds of billions of dollars can be spent over the
next several years on unnecessary additional increases in military
spending and on tax cuts that will mainly benefit the wealthiest
Americans among us.
These program cuts will cost our Nation dearly in countless ways, Mr.
Speaker. The bill is a 27-percent cut in energy conservation programs
and will mean a slowdown in the progress we have been making toward
reducing our Nation's dependence on imported oil as well as the cost of
energy. The elimination of all but a nominal amount of funding for land
acquisition for national parks and for other public lands will mean
that there will be far fewer opportunities in the future for Americans
to enjoy the experiences our national parks and other public lands have
to offer.
The 40-percent cut in funding for the National Endowments for the
Arts and Humanities, the first step of the elimination of both
organizations, will mean that fewer Americans will be able to enjoy the
very many cultural benefits that these organizations have made possible
across this wide and great country of ours. And the elimination of
funding for prelisting and listing activities for endangered species
will greatly impair our ability to save animal and plant species before
they reach critical level. The result is likely to be the decline and
the possible extinction of many additional species.
In this and many other ways, the natural and cultural resources of
our national resources that help make the United States the greatest
nation on Earth will be severely harmed by this bill. This misguided
attempt to save a very modest amount of taxpayers' dollars will be
robbing our Nation of some of its greatest strengths and assets.
Mr. Speaker, we urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question
and ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the
members of the Committee on Rules and all those who worked so late into
the night last night to reach agreement on this rule. The amount of
money that is going to go to the NEA, should this rule pass and the
bill pass, will be the same as was originally planned and probably a
little bit more.
The only difference is, instead of having it in 3-year tranches, it
is going to be in 2 years. That will definitely let the people who
support the NEA know that after the 2-year period, the money is going
to be there, but after the 2-year period they go to private sources to
get funding for NEA projects.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the gentleman's position
is based on what he conceives to be the position of the authorizing
committee. That is what we use as the basis for our appropriation. The
Senate bill is entirely different. They may come up with another form
of the bill and, as a result, the result of what the gentleman predicts
may not come to pass.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman
is saying. I thank him for his contribution. But I have great
confidence in our conferees that they are going to hold firm. When you
have confidence in Members like the gentleman from Ohio, your
confidence is well founded.
I think we will have an agreement that was reached last night, one
that was acceptable to all factions of our party. I hope to the
Democratic Party as well as those of all political persuasions.
I would just like to say to my colleagues who are members of various
organizations in the Republican Conference that we worked long and hard
last night to hammer out our differences. I cannot think of anybody,
liberal, moderate, or conservative, that cannot support this rule. I
would like to urge all of my colleagues, when they come to the floor,
if they have any doubts about the rule, to look up their friends of the
various philosophical persuasions and ask them what happened last night
so that they will be fully informed and will vote correctly on the
rule.
We should have unanimous consent on the rule, unanimous passage. I
doubt if my Democrat colleagues agree with that. But at least on the
Republican side, we should have 232 hard votes.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House
would again reject this rule since this rule is contrary to the rules
of the House in that it provides for substantial legislation on an
appropriation and protects those items of legislation on an
appropriation against a point of order that would ordinarily lie
against those provisions under the rules of the House. So we are not
quite complying with the rules of the House as the majority has
suggested that we are.
But it is also because the changes that they seek to make are
devastating to the programs. This legislation that historically has
been about the stewardship of this Government of the public's lands,
the lands that are owned by the taxpayers and the citizens of the
United States of America, public lands that are used by some 300
million visitors this year, public lands that have attracted millions
of tourists from other countries to the United States to visit our
parks, to visit our wilderness
[[Page H 6924]]
areas, to visit our historical sites, it has been the charge of this
committee to provide the resources to take care of those lands. What we
see now is for the first time in 40 years, this committee has failed to
discharge its duty to the public in the kind of funding that it
provides.
This committee has gone far beyond just the issue of the budgetary
issues. This committee has gone off in a fit against activities that
they do not like. They do not like the Endangered Species Act. So they
decided what they would do is they would not let any moneys be used for
prelisting activities. That is an interesting notion because that also
means that you cannot use money for prelisting activities that might
prevent a species from being endangered.
They also tell you that they are not going to let you use volunteers
to go around and collect the data that might help us map out how we
avoid the endangered species crisis that we have experienced in the
past. They also tell you that they will not let you use the National
Biological Survey on private lands, even if requested by private
landowners.
And the fact of the matter is, we have forest products companies in
this country that have requested this help so they can map out how to
harvest their timber in an environmentally safe manner, how they can
harvest their timber so they do not run into an endangered species
problem, how they can harvest it on a sustainable basis so they can go
to their shareholders and they can say: This is on your plan to operate
this company in the future. We would not allow them to have the benefit
of the knowledge and the scientific expertise of the biological survey
even if requested by them.
These Republicans are sticking their head in the sand, and what do
they hope happens? They hope that we get into an endangered species
crises, one after another, one after another so there will be a growing
groundswell to repeal the act. If it is in fact repealed, it will be
repealed because they have denied the ability of the agencies to work
to protect the endangered species.
Last night we were treated on ABC News to the success of the
Endangered Species Act, to the bald eagle being returned from the
endangered list to now 4,000 pairs, bald eagles also that are viewed
now in many States where they were basically extinct because of DDT and
because of other activities, and the delisting of the gray whale and
others. So where are we on this?
They have decided they want to fight over the past, and they want to
destroy the ability of this agency to do its work. Not only have they
weighed in on behalf of the special interests that want to see the
repeal of the Endangered Species Act, but they have also weighed in on
behalf of the special interests that simply want to continue to use the
public's lands without paying for them. In my town hall meetings very
often people say to me when they are talking about the deficit, they
say, why do not you run the Government like a business?
One of the reasons we do not run the Government like a business is
because of the Republicans. No business would give away billions of
dollars of gold and platinum and silver and trona and coal and gas and
oil and not make those individuals pay a fair royalty. But that is what
the Federal Government does.
Last year we witnessed the Federal Government giving away land for a
few thousand dollars, of which it was expected to be mined a billion
dollars or $10 billion in gold. And the American taxpayer got zip.
You want to know why there is a deficit? You keep pandering to the
big energy companies, to the big mining companies, and you will end up
with a deficit. The public is entitled to a fair return.
But what does this bill do? This bill says, we will remove the
moratorium. It got so outrageous that the Congress decided last year to
put a moratorium on this activity until we get a mining reform bill.
They have lifted the moratorium, so once again we are back into the
business of giving long-term leases, ownership in fact, of Federal
lands to the mining companies without their paying their fair share for
that effort.
I think that you have got to understand that this legislation is
among the worst pieces of environmental legislation to come through the
House so far. It falls on the heels of the lobbyists and special
interests writing the clean water bill that we witnessed. It falls on
the legislation to devastate the environment in terms of regulatory
reform that is now being held up in the Senate.
We ought to disavow this legislation. We ought to disavow this rule
because of its allowing for legislation on the appropriation. And we
also ought to understand that this is a systematic effort to undermine
the Endangered Species Act so that Members will hear from their
districts that they have to repeal the act because the act does not
work.
The reason the act does not work is because the Republicans in the
House are falling into the same method that George Bush and Ronald
Reagan used, and that was, they would not let the act work because they
were hoping that they could build up such anger over the act that it
would, in fact, be repealed. It is not going to be repealed because the
overwhelming majority of American people do not want it repealed. They
want it to work. They want the species saved. They want us to make
smart decisions.
Finally, let me just say this, they banned the use of volunteers.
They banned the use of volunteers. Four thousand Americans go out and
help this Government by surveying the number of birds, breeding birds,
and others in this country, and help State agencies to collect that
data.
In Yosemite National Park and in Sequoia National Park, they collect
biological data. We are trying to restore the Grand Sequoias of the
Sierra Mountains. And yet what we find out is, if you want to do that
on private land with volunteers, you are not allowed to do that.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the gentleman that I
will be offering an amendment, in conformance with the suggestion of
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to allow the volunteers to do
the migratory bird counts.
Mr. MILLER of California. Are we going to allow the National
Biological Survey on private property?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
am just talking about the bird count.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula] was coming my way. Here I have been speaking for 7
minutes.
Let me tell you about the National Biological Survey on private
lands. This is an outrage.
The issue about the National Biological Survey on private land is
this, a lot of local communities and a lot of companies, private
enterprise, want to avoid the problems of the Endangered Species Act
and getting into where you have a threatened endangered species.
In southern California, in northern California that I am familiar
with, they are trying to go out and determine the areas that are
inhabited by the kit fox, by the salamanders, so that the developers,
the home builders, industry and others will know what they can do or
not do with their land and how they can develop it. They want the help
of the government. They want the help. Forest products companies in the
Southeast have asked for help from the National Biological Survey.
What this Congress would say or what this House would say in this
bill is, even if requested, they cannot help you, if it is about
private land. What you have done is you have diminished the rights of
those landowners to get the help of the Government that they pay taxes
for that have the expertise to help them get out of a problem that can
cost them millions of dollars, if not their companies.
They are asking for help and you are telling them no, we will not
allow you to be of help on private land.
Last year we had a problem because people were concerned about the
National Biological Survey coming onto their land without permission.
And we required that they obey the laws of the State and gain
permission. No problem with that. But now you are saying to people who
are involved, have hundreds of millions of dollars at risk, have loans
at the banks, that they cannot get the help from their Federal
Government or Orange County cannot get the
[[Page H 6925]]
help or the Irvine Co. cannot get the help, they cannot get the help to
solve this problem because somebody has decided they want a train
wreck. They want a national crisis around the Endangered Species Act.
It is absolutely mindless.
Let us hear for an amendment on that one. Come on. Do we have one?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think it should be pointed out that what you have been addressing is
the science, and if you could guarantee to me that every volunteer will
be a Ph.D. scientist that is fine. Keep in mind that this does not
restrict volunteers in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Park
Service, the BLM or any of the other agencies of Interior, only the
natural resource science of the USGS. So I think we have to be very
careful in the definition of our terms here.
Mr. MILLER of California. Why would we not allow this Government to
engage volunteers to collect samples of habitat or to map out areas and
give that to the scientists and let the scientists make their
determination? It is mindless, again, when private companies are asking
for the help. You do not say only scientists. You say no volunteers.
You say nobody from NBS on private land.
Mr. REGULA. Because the ones you are talking about were used by the
NBS, which is no longer funded in the bill. That is gone. And we have a
natural resource science function in USGS. And if somebody is taking a
blood sample of any of us, we want somebody that knows what they are
doing to do it, not somebody that is just a volunteer and may lack
appropriate training.
Mr. MILLER of California. You will not even let the science people.
No amendment, Ralph?
____________________